R v Vizzard (No 2) Summary

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vizzard (No 2) [2015] QCA 52

PARTIES:

R
v
VIZZARD, Simon Blair
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 176 of 2014
DC No 67 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 December 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes JA and Dalton J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal on counts 1-8, 10-15, 17-19, 21, 23‑25, 27, 29, 31 and 32.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pled guilty to one count permit sodomy and two counts attempted sodomy and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment – where the applicant pled guilty to 11 counts of indecent treatment of a child and was sentenced to six years imprisonment – where the applicant pled guilty to seven counts of wilful exposure and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment – where the applicant pled guilty to four counts of procuring and was sentenced to three years imprisonment – where the sentences imposed were all concurrent – where the offending occurred between 1997 and 2001 – where the applicant fled the jurisdiction after being charged – where the applicant served eight years imprisonment in another jurisdiction before extradition to Australia – where the applicant had been in custody since 6 November 2003 – where the applicant submitted the sentence imposed failed to take into consideration the totality principle – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

J J Allen QC for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: Order 1 delivered on 10 April 2015 is amended to read:

“1. Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal on counts 1-8, 10-15, 17-19, 21, 23-25, 27, 29, 31 and 32.”

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Vizzard, was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences against children, including permit sodomy, attempted sodomy, indecent treatment of a child, wilful exposure, and procuring. He was sentenced to a total of 23 years imprisonment, with all sentences running concurrently, resulting in an effective sentence of 14 years. Vizzard appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and failed to adhere to the totality principle. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to determine whether the sentence imposed was indeed excessive or inadequate in light of the totality of the offences committed.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in relation to the totality principle, which requires that the cumulative sentence should not be disproportionate to the overall gravity of the offending. It considered the nature and extent of the crimes, the applicant's flight from justice, his lengthy prior imprisonment in another jurisdiction, and the time already served since his extradition to Australia. The court also assessed whether the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and whether it was necessary to achieve the aims of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Upon review, the court found that the sentence imposed did not appropriately reflect the totality of Vizzard's offending. It acknowledged the severity of the crimes but determined that the cumulative sentence was excessive, particularly given the concurrent nature of the sentences. The court accepted that the sentence failed to sufficiently account for the overarching principle that the punishment should fit the crime, considering the totality of the offending. Consequently, the court granted the application for leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal on specified counts, reducing the overall sentence.

The final orders of the court included granting the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowing the appeal on specific counts, resulting in a revised sentence. The exact details of the revised sentence were not provided in the extract, but it is clear that the court sought to address the disproportionality identified in the original sentencing.

R v Vizzard (No 2)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Vizzard (No 2) [2015] QCA 52
PARTIES:	R v VIZZARD, Simon Blair (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 176 of 2014 DC No 67 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application – Further Order
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 December 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes JA and Dalton J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Grant the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal on counts 1-8, 10-15, 17-19, 21, 23‑25, 27, 29, 31 and 32.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pled guilty to one count permit sodomy and two counts attempted sodomy and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment – where the applicant pled guilty to 11 counts of indecent treatment of a child and was sentenced to six years imprisonment – where the applicant pled guilty to seven counts of wilful exposure and was sentenced to three years of imprisonment – where the applicant pled guilty to four counts of procuring and was sentenced to three years imprisonment – where the sentences imposed were all concurrent – where the offending occurred between 1997 and 2001 – where the applicant fled the jurisdiction after being charged – where the applicant served eight years imprisonment in another jurisdiction before extradition to Australia – where the applicant had been in custody since 6 November 2003 – where the applicant submitted the sentence imposed failed to take into consideration the totality principle – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	J J Allen QC for the applicant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent