SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v W [2004] QCA 124
PARTIES:
R
v
W
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 391 of 2003
DC No 1522 of 2002DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
22 April 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
22 April 2004
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Application refused
2. The envelope containing the section 13A to be resealed and not to be opened except with a further order by the CourtCATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – DISPARITY – CO-OFFENDERS
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OTHER CONVICTIONS OF OFFENDER - where applicant sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment following conviction by a jury of the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent – where co-offenders pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm simplicita and were sentenced to two years’ imprisonment suspended after three months -where the applicant had a relevant prior criminal history - whether the penalty imposed on the applicant is manifestly excessive compared to the penalties imposed on the co-offendersPenalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A
COUNSEL:
A J Rafter for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondentSOLICITORS:
P J O’Brien for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant was sentenced to four and a half years' imprisonment following conviction by a jury of the offence of doing grievous bodily harm with intent.
The offence involved the stabbing of the complainant in the course of a beating by the applicant and two co-offenders during the night. The complainant had earlier caused considerable trouble at the residence of one of the co-offenders. They chased him off, cornered him in a dark place and delivered the beating. They were armed at the time with a pool cue, a baseball bat and a knife. The applicant was described as an active and enthusiastic participant. The complainant received life-threatening injuries from which he fortunately recovered.
Although the applicant was prepared to plead guilty his plea was offered on the basis it was not he who stabbed the complainant. Asked for a special verdict, the jury indicated it did not know who stabbed the complainant. The applicant was sentenced on the basis he was involved in an assault of some seriousness knowing that others in the assault…
Continue reading R v W
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v W [2004] QCA 124
- Case
- [2004] QCA 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the penalty imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive compared to the penalties imposed on the co-offenders. The court needed to determine whether the disparity in the sentences was sufficient to warrant interference with the original sentencing decision. The applicant argued that the penalty imposed on them was manifestly excessive when considering the co-offenders' sentences and their own relevant prior criminal history.
The court carefully considered the circumstances of the case and the penalties imposed on the co-offenders. The court recognised that the applicant had a relevant prior criminal history, but ultimately found that the disparity in the sentences was not so great as to warrant interference with the original sentencing decision. The court found that the applicant's sentence was not manifestly excessive when compared to the sentences imposed on the co-offenders, and that the original sentence was appropriate in the circumstances.
The court refused the application to reduce the sentence. The court ordered that the envelope containing the section 13A be resealed and not opened except with a further order by the Court. This decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when determining an appropriate sentence, and the need for a degree of consistency in sentencing similar offences.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application refused
2. The envelope containing the section 13A to be resealed and not to be opened except with a further order by the Court
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.