R v Walton - [2006] QCA 522

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Walton [2006] QCA 522

PARTIES:

R
v
WALTON, Helena

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 288 of 2006

DC No 521 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 December 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Philippides J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

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 – where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of stalking – where applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of two years – where offending behaviour occurred over a period of 17 months – where the volume of telephone calls made to the complainant by the applicant evidenced determined and persistent conduct – where the applicant involved the complainant’s teenage son as a recipient of some of the abusive calls – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Kyriakou (1994) 75 A Crim R 1, cited
R v Layfield [2003] QCA 3; CA No 271 of 2002, 29 January 2003, cited
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
R v Millar [2002] QCA 382; CA No 198 of 2002, 25 September 2002, cited
R v Reid; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2001] QCA 301; CA No 85 of 2001, 26 July 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

P J Davis SC for the applicant

D R McKenzie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan and Bosscher for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

AMS JAWILLI: The relevant facts are fully set out in the reasons for judgment of Philippides J with which I agree.

I would add that, in my view, deterrence must always be the major factor in sentencing for the offence of stalking. The penalty must be designed to ensure that the conduct in question does not continue. In a case such as this it is not to the point to say that no specific threat to the complainant was made. Conduct such as that of the applicant is designed to put as much stress as possible on the complainant and constitutes at least a direct threat to the complainant's mental wellbeing. Ordinary people subjected to such stress may feel compelled to react inappropriately or may well develop psychiatric conditions. In either case there could be far-reaching complications; in an extreme case the target of the stalking could well react by committing a criminal offence.

For all of those reasons a deterrent sentence is called for in cases of this type, and in my view it…

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 Walton

Details

AGLC: R v Walton [2006] QCA 522
Case: [2006] QCA 522
Decision Date: 8 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Walton involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to three counts of stalking against a complainant. The court sentenced the appellant to six months imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of two years. The offending behaviour had occurred over a span of 17 months, with a significant volume of telephone calls made by the appellant to the complainant. Furthermore, the appellant had involved the complainant’s teenage son as a recipient of some of the abusive calls. The appellant applied to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and duration of the stalking, the volume of calls, and the involvement of the complainant's son. The court had to assess whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's conduct and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

In its reasoning, the court noted the seriousness of the stalking and the persistent and determined nature of the offending behaviour, which spanned over 17 months. The court also highlighted the involvement of the complainant’s son, adding to the distress caused. However, the court considered the appellant's guilty plea, the absence of violence, and the imposition of a suspended sentence, which provided an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court concluded that while the sentence was not ideal, it was not manifestly excessive and reflected the need to balance punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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.

CITATION:	R v Walton [2006] QCA 522
PARTIES:	R v WALTON, Helena (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 288 of 2006 DC No 521 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 December 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	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 – where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of stalking – where applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of two years – where offending behaviour occurred over a period of 17 months – where the volume of telephone calls made to the complainant by the applicant evidenced determined and persistent conduct – where the applicant involved the complainant’s teenage son as a recipient of some of the abusive calls – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances R v Kyriakou (1994) 75 A Crim R 1, cited R v Layfield [2003] QCA 3; CA No 271 of 2002, 29 January 2003, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited R v Millar [2002] QCA 382; CA No 198 of 2002, 25 September 2002, cited R v Reid; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2001] QCA 301; CA No 85 of 2001, 26 July 2001, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Davis SC for the applicant D R McKenzie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan and Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent