R v Warwick - [2006] QCA 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Warwick [2006] QCA 83

PARTIES:

R
v
WARWICK, William Brian
(applicant)

FILE NO:

CA No 339 of 2005
DC No 22 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Innisfail

DELIVERED ON:

22 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA, Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Application to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted on his own plea of guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm – where applicant was guest in complainants home – where applicant assaulted complaint by punching her in the face and fracturing her jaw – where applicant is a deaf mute and suffers from schizophrenia – whether sentencing judge adequately took into account early plea of guilty – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(3), s 13(4)

R v Seirakowski [1992] QCA 3; CA No 337 of 1991, 4 March 1992, considered
R v Woods [2004] QCA 204; CA No 99 of 2004, 18 June 2004, considered

COUNSEL:

R A East for the applicant
T A Fuller for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice Douglas to deliver his reasons first.

DOUGLAS J: The applicant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on 14 November, 2005 on a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm. On 31 October, 2004 he was a house guest in the complainant's home. At some stage during the evening of that day the 42 year old complainant asked the applicant and his girlfriend to leave the bedroom normally used by her son which she had previously allowed them to use for the night. Her boyfriend was coming over and she wanted them to leave the house. This led to an argument between the applicant and his girlfriend and the complainant culminating in the applicant pushing the complainant in the chest and punching her in the face with enough force to fracture the left side of her jaw. There was disagreement at the hearing as to whether there were several blows or only one.

The applicant is a 30 year old deaf mute who has schizophrenia. He was 29 when he committed the offence. He admitted striking the complainant when interviewed by the police and pleaded guilty before the learned sentencing judge. He had previous convictions for offences of assault occasioning bodily harm in 1995 and 2002, common assault in 2004 and two breaches of a domestic violence order in 2004. The second of those two breaches occurred after the commission of this offence but before the applicant was charged. He had previously…

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 Warwick

Details

AGLC: R v Warwick [2006] QCA 83
Case: [2006] QCA 83
Decision Date: 22 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Warwick involved the appellant who had pleaded guilty to a charge of assault occasioning bodily harm. The assault occurred when the appellant was a guest in the complainant's home, resulting in the complainant suffering a fractured jaw after being punched in the face. The appellant, who is a deaf mute and suffers from schizophrenia, was convicted based on his own plea of guilty. The appellant subsequently applied to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that the sentencing judge had not adequately taken into account his early plea of guilty and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had properly considered the appellant's early plea of guilty and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing, the role of an early guilty plea in potentially reducing a sentence, and the specific circumstances of the case, including the appellant's background and the nature of the offence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed considered the appellant's early plea of guilty, as evidenced by the judge's remarks during the sentencing hearing. The court noted that while the appellant's plea of guilty was an important factor, it was not the only consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also considered the seriousness of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the appellant's personal circumstances. After a thorough review of the sentencing process and the evidence, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. Therefore, the application to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

In dismissing the application, the court emphasised the importance of a fair and balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account all relevant factors, including an early plea of guilty, but also considering the gravity of the offence and the broader societal implications of the sentence. The court's decision underscores the principle that sentencing is a complex process requiring careful consideration of various factors, and that an appeal against sentence will only be successful if the sentence is found to be manifestly excessive or inappropriate in the circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 Warwick [2006] QCA 83
PARTIES:	R v WARWICK, William Brian (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 339 of 2005 DC No 22 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Innisfail
DELIVERED ON:	22 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 March 2006
JUDGES:	Williams and Keane JJA, Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Application to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted on his own plea of guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm – where applicant was guest in complainants home – where applicant assaulted complaint by punching her in the face and fracturing her jaw – where applicant is a deaf mute and suffers from schizophrenia – whether sentencing judge adequately took into account early plea of guilty – whether sentence manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(3), s 13(4) R v Seirakowski [1992] QCA 3; CA No 337 of 1991, 4 March 1992, considered R v Woods [2004] QCA 204; CA No 99 of 2004, 18 June 2004, considered
COUNSEL:	R A East for the applicant T A Fuller for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents