Legal Research
Cases
R v Wales

R v Wales

Case [2019] QCA 64 16 April 2019

Appeal

Sentencing

Serious Violent Offence Declaration

Integrated Approach to Sentencing

Manifestly Excessive Sentence

Principles of Parity

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wales [2019] QCA 64

PARTIES:

R
v
WALES, Joshua Don Francis
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No of 122 of 2018
SC No 84 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 17 May 2018 (Crow J)

DELIVERED ON:

16 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.   Vary the sentence imposed upon the applicant by setting aside the serious violent offence declarations in respect of each offence of which the applicant was convicted.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment for manslaughter with a concurrent term of four years imprisonment for burglary by breaking whilst armed with violence in company with property damage – where a serious violent offence declaration was made in respect of each offence – whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to adopt an integrated approach to sentencing – whether the serious violent offence declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive having regard to the principles of parity

Criminal Code (Qld), s 8
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, applied
Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Hicks & Taylor[2011] QCA 207, applied
R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, applied
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, applied

COUNSEL:

K Prskalo, with J Horne, for the applicant
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: The applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty and he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for manslaughter and to a concurrent term of four years imprisonment for burglary by breaking, whilst armed, with violence, in company, with property damage. The sentencing judge declared that the applicant was convicted of a serious violent offence in respect of each offence. The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the sentence on two grounds: (ground 1) the sentencing judge erred by failing to adopt an integrated approach in the exercise of the sentencing discretion and (ground 2) the serious violent offence declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive having regard to the sentence imposed on co-offender Abell and the principles of parity.
The applicant was sentenced upon a statement of agreed facts. I will reproduce the relevant parts of the statement:
“On the afternoon of the offence … the defendant and his friends, Mala Geissler and Jeremy Abell,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Wales

Details

AGLC: R v Wales [2019] QCA 64
Case: [2019] QCA 64
Decision Date: 16 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wales, the applicant appealed against his sentence for convictions of manslaughter and burglary by breaking whilst armed with violence in company with property damage. The applicant was sentenced to a total of thirteen years imprisonment, comprising nine years for manslaughter and a concurrent term of four years for the burglary. A serious violent offence declaration was made in respect of each offence. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge erred in failing to adopt an integrated approach to sentencing and that the serious violent offence declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to adopt an integrated approach to sentencing and whether the serious violent offence declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of parity and the need to ensure that the sentence reflects the totality of the offending. The court also considered the need to ensure that the sentence is proportionate to the seriousness of the offending.

The court found that the sentencing judge erred in failing to adopt an integrated approach to sentencing. The court held that the serious violent offence declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence imposed did not reflect the totality of the offending and was disproportionate to the seriousness of the offending. The court held that the sentence should be reduced to reflect the principles of parity and proportionality. The court granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal against sentence. The court set aside the serious violent offence declarations in respect of each offence of which the applicant was convicted.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. Vary the sentence imposed upon the applicant by setting aside the serious violent offence declarations in respect of each offence of which the applicant was convicted.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Wales [2019] QCA 64

Most Recent Citation

R v Lawler [2020] QCA 166

Cases citing this decision · 2 of 2 shown

R v Bornstein
[2024] QSC 270 Para 41

…v Jervis ,[11] R v Wales ,[12] R v Kirke ,[13] R v Granz-Glenn [14] and more recently R v LZY & Porter .[15] [11][1991] QSCCA; (1993) 1 Qd R 643. [12][2019] QCA 64. [13][2020] QCA 53. [14][2023] QCA 157. [15][2024] QSC 237.…
R v Lawler
[2020] QCA 166 Para 14

…In R v Wales [2019] QCA 64, the offender pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced to nine years imprisonment. A concurrent term of four years imprisonment was imposed for burglary by breaking, whilst armed, with violence, in company, with property damage. The sentencing judge imposed a declaration of a s…

View all 2 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 11 of 11 shown

R v Geissler
[2019] QCA 63 Para 12

…ntence should be significantly more lenient than the sentence imposed upon Geissler. So much is common ground in the parties’ submissions. [7][2019] QCA 63.…
R v Illin
[2014] QCA 285

…The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Hicks & Taylor [2011] QCA 207, applied R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, applied R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, applied COUNSEL: K Prskalo, with J Horne, for the applicant D C Boyle for the respondent SOLICITORS:…
Barbaro v The Queen
[2014] HCA 2

…Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, applied Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Hicks & Taylor [2011] QCA 207, applied R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, appli…
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen
[2011] HCA 49 Para 2

…ersons according to differences between them relevant to the scope, purpose and subject matter of the law”: Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462 at 472 – 473 [28] (French CJ, Crennan and Kiefel JJ). In order to achieve those objectives, an appellate court may interfere with a sentence which is not manifestly excessiv…
R v Hicks & Taylor
[2011] QCA 207 Para 7

…o amelioration of the statutory eligibility for parole at the halfway mark) was substituted for the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. [10][2011] QCA 207. [11][2000] QCA 278. [12](2002) 131 A Crim R 150.…
R v McDougall and Collas
[2006] QCA 365

…lor [2011] QCA 207, applied R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, applied R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, applied COUNSEL: K Prskalo, with J Horne, for the applicant D C Boyle for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecuti…
Markarian v The Queen
[2005] HCA 25

…111; [1999] HCA 46, applied Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Hicks & Taylor [2011] QCA 207, applied R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, applied R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, a…
R v Schuurs
[2000] QCA 278 Para 7

…e statutory eligibility for parole at the halfway mark) was substituted for the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. [10][2011] QCA 207. [11][2000] QCA 278. [12](2002) 131 A Crim R 150.…
AB v The Queen
[1999] HCA 46

…e principles of parity Criminal Code (Qld), s 8 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, applied Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Hicks & Taylor [2011] QCA 207, app…
Postiglione v the Queen
[1997] HCA 26 Para 2

…f the offences or the offenders’ personal circumstances: see Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, and Green v The Queen .”…
Lowe v R
[1984] HCA 46 Para 2

…icable by differences in the circumstances of the offences or the offenders’ personal circumstances: see Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, and Green v The Queen .”…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
161B 2 mentions (from Para 6)

CITATION:	R v Wales [2019] QCA 64
PARTIES:	R v WALES, Joshua Don Francis (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No of 122 of 2018 SC No 84 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay – Date of Sentence: 17 May 2018 (Crow J)
DELIVERED ON:	16 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2018
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal against sentence allowed. 3. Vary the sentence imposed upon the applicant by setting aside the serious violent offence declarations in respect of each offence of which the applicant was convicted.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to nine years imprisonment for manslaughter with a concurrent term of four years imprisonment for burglary by breaking whilst armed with violence in company with property damage – where a serious violent offence declaration was made in respect of each offence – whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to adopt an integrated approach to sentencing – whether the serious violent offence declaration rendered the sentence manifestly excessive having regard to the principles of parity Criminal Code (Qld), s 8 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, applied Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Hicks & Taylor[2011] QCA 207, applied R v Illin (2014) 246 A Crim R 176; [2014] QCA 285, applied R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, applied
COUNSEL:	K Prskalo, with J Horne, for the applicant D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent