R v Wentworth - [1996] QCA 534

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 534
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 461 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Wentworth]

THE QUEEN

MARK TIMOTHY WENTWORTH

(Applicant)
Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Moynihan J.

Judgment delivered 20 December 1996

Separate reasons for judgment by each member of the court. McPherson J.A. and Moynihan J. agreeing as to the orders made, the President dissenting.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - grievous bodily harm with intent - applicant threw petrol over complainants - whether sentence manifestly excessive
Counsel:	K. McGuinness for the applicant M.J. Byrne Q.C. for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date: 3 December 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - FITZGERALD P.

Judgment delivered 20 December 1996

The circumstances giving rise to this appeal are set out in the reasons for judgment of Moynihan J.

The seriousness of the applicant’s offences is manifest, and his other behaviour towards his former wife has been disgraceful. It is not surprising that she has sustained a severe and lasting psychological reaction.

Further, as his Honour points out, it is difficult to identify a sentencing pattern in the cases which have been drawn to the Court’s attention. Even so, there must be an appropriate sentencing range applicable to the applicant’s offences.

Although it is necessary to proceed largely by way of impression formed by reference to the cases referred to and other experience, I am of opinion that the sentence imposed upon the applicant is not merely at the top but outside the range applicable for his offences, especially when regard is had to the lack of serious physical injury sustained by the complainants. In my opinion, the sentencing judge should have sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a period of not less than six nor more than eight years.

Accordingly, I would grant the application for leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and substitute a sentence of imprisonment for seven years in respect of each offence, the sentences to be served concurrently. The declaration that the sentence composed on 8 April 1995 and that the applicant had spent 445 days in custody in respect of the offences should stand. I would set aside the recommendation that the applicant be eligible to be considered for parole after serving three and a half years, and substitute a recommendation that he be eligible to be considered for parole after he has served three years.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - McPHERSON J.A.

Judgment delivered on 20 December 1996

In my opinion, leave to appeal should be refused for the reasons given by

Moynihan J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - MOYNIHAN J.

Judgment delivered 20 December 1996

The applicant pleaded guilty on 11 March 1996 to two counts pursuant to s.317 of the Code that, with intent to do some grievous bodily harm, he unlawfully applied an explosive substance (petrol) to the person of his former wife and her companion. The plea effected…

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 Wentworth

Details

AGLC: R v Wentworth [1996] QCA 534
Case: [1996] QCA 534
Decision Date: 20/12/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Wentworth was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Wentworth, appealed against his conviction for grievous bodily harm with intent. The incident in question involved the appellant throwing petrol over two complainants, causing severe burns. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances and his otherwise unblemished criminal record.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence that the appellant claimed was manifestly excessive. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing in cases of grievous bodily harm with intent and determine whether the sentence was outside the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for such an offence.

The court noted that sentencing for grievous bodily harm with intent involves assessing the gravity of the offence, which includes the degree of harm caused and the appellant's intent. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and consistency in sentencing. It held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the crime and the harm caused. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors, including the appellant's culpability and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders