R v Turnbull

Case [2013] QCA 374

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Turnbull [2013] QCA 374

PARTIES:

R
v
TURNBULL, Gary Une
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 52 of 2013
DC No 3394 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 December 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 November 2013

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and Applegarth J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:

1.    Allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2.    Allow the appeal against sentence.

3.    Set aside the sentences of 16 years, 20 years and 20 years’ imprisonment imposed on counts 5, 8 and 10 respectively on 7 June 2002 and substitute sentences of 10 years, 13 years and 13 years on counts 5, 8 and 10 respectively.

4.    Otherwise confirm the orders then made.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where applicant granted extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where applicant pleaded guilty to ten count indictment – where applicant sentenced to 16 years, 20 years and 20 years for three counts of rape to be served concurrently – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether learned sentencing judge gave sufficient consideration to the plea of guilty

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(1)

R v Atwell[2000] QCA 266, cited
R v Barclay[1999] QCA 457, cited
R v Breckenridge [1966] Qd R 189, cited
R v Buckley[2008] QCA 45, considered
R v Burley; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1998] QCA 98, considered
R v CAJ[2009] QCA 37, cited
R v Colless [2011] 2 Qd R 421; [2010] QCA 26, considered
R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415; [1993] QCA 417, cited
R v Dargin[2013] QCA 20, considered
R v Delgado-Guerra; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2002] 2 Qd R 384; [2001] QCA 266, cited
R v Edwards[2004] QCA 20, considered
R v Hussein & Hussein[2006] QCA 411, cited
R v King [1995] QCA 77, cited
R v Mahony & Shenfield[2012] QCA 366, cited
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited
R v Robinson[2007] QCA 349, considered
R v Spoehr[2003] QCA 412, cited
R v Tomlin[1995] QCA 177, cited
R v Wark[2008] QCA 172, considered
R v Watcho (1998) 104 A Crim R 300; [1998] QCA 331, cited

COUNSEL:

A M Nelson for the applicant (pro bono)
G Cummings for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Alexander Law for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. GOTTERSON JA:  I agree with the orders proposed by Applegarth J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

  1. MORRISON JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the…

Continue reading R v Turnbull

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Turnbull [2013] QCA 374
Case
[2013] QCA 374
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Turnbull involved the appellant who had been sentenced to various terms of imprisonment following his guilty pleas to multiple counts of rape. The appellant applied for an extension of time to appeal against his sentence, which was granted, and subsequently lodged an appeal contending that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the appellant's guilty plea when determining the penalty.

The court assessed the principle of manifest excess in sentencing, considering whether the sentence imposed was so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the court. The court scrutinised the severity of the sentence in relation to the gravity of the offences committed and the appellant's guilty plea. The court noted that while the offences were serious, the appellant's early guilty plea should have been a significant mitigating factor. The sentencing judge's failure to sufficiently consider this plea was a critical aspect of the court's evaluation.

Upon reviewing the evidence and the submissions, the court found that the original sentences were indeed manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentencing judge did not adequately weigh the appellant's early guilty plea, which should have resulted in a more lenient sentence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal against the sentence and varied the terms of imprisonment for the relevant counts. The original sentences were set aside, and new sentences were imposed, reflecting a more proportionate penalty that appropriately considered the mitigating factor of the guilty plea.

In its final orders, the court granted the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentences, and substituted them with new sentences of 10 years, 13 years, and 13 years respectively for the specified counts. The remainder of the orders made previously were confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Allow the appeal against sentence.

3. Set aside the sentences of 16 years, 20 years and 20 years’ imprisonment imposed on counts 5, 8 and 10 respectively on 7 June 2002 and substitute sentences of 10 years, 13 years and 13 years on counts 5, 8 and 10 respectively.

4. Otherwise confirm the orders then made.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.