R v Williams; Ex parte

Case [2014] QCA 346

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williams; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 346

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMS, Richard Quincy
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 90 of 2014
DC No 464 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

19 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 October 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes JA and McMeekin and Henry JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, McMeekin and Henry JJ concurring as to the orders made, Holmes JA dissenting

ORDERS:

The sentence imposed below be set aside.1.   

The respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for eight years2.   .

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to assault with intent to commit rape, deprivation of liberty and rape – where the respondent was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with eligibility for parole after three years – where the respondent committed the offences against the complainant in a public place when she was on an evening training run – where the appellant contends that the sentence was plainly unreasonable and unjust – where the appellant appeals the sentence on the basis that the sentencing judge should have declared this a serious violent offence under s 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 2003 (Qld) – where the appellant contends the trial judge misapprehended an obligation to set a parole eligibility date and failed to give sufficient weight to the aggravated culpability of the respondent due to his self-intoxication at the time of the offence – where the appellant submits the parole eligibility date produced an exceptional result – whether the sentence was unjust or unreasonable – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(e), s 9(2)(b)(i), s 9(3)(e), s 13(1), s 161B
Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 (Qld), s 15

Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372; (2014) 305 ALR 323; [2014] HCA 2, applied
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
Power v The Queen (1974) 131 CLR 623; [1974] HCA 26, cited
R v Basic (2000) 115 A Crim R 456; [2000] QCA 155, applied
R v Benjamin (2012) 224 A Crim R 40; [2012] QCA 188, considered
R v Dowden[2010] QCA 125, considered
R v GAR[2014] QCA 30, applied
R v Harris [1998] 4 VR 21, applied
R v Kahu[2006] QCA 413, considered
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, applied
R v O’Brien[1998] QCA 80, considered
R v Purcell[2010] QCA 285, considered
R v Shrestha (1991) 173 CLR 48; [1991] HCA 26, cited

Continue reading R v Williams; Ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Williams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 346
Case
[2014] QCA 346
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this appeal, the appellant challenges the sentence imposed on the respondent who was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape, deprivation of liberty, and rape. The sentencing judge imposed an eight-year imprisonment term with eligibility for parole after three years. The respondent committed these offences against the complainant during an evening training run in a public place. The appellant argues that the sentence is plainly unreasonable and unjust. The appellant contends that the sentencing judge should have declared the offence a serious violent offence under section 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 2003 (Qld), and that the judge misapprehended an obligation to set a parole eligibility date and failed to give sufficient weight to the aggravated culpability of the respondent due to his self-intoxication at the time of the offence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was unjust or unreasonable, and whether it was manifestly inadequate. The appellant argued that the trial judge misapprehended the obligation to set a parole eligibility date and failed to give sufficient weight to the aggravated culpability of the respondent due to his self-intoxication at the time of the offence. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character and antecedents of the offender, and any other relevant matter. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate or excessive. The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and unjust, as the trial judge had misapplied the law and failed to give sufficient weight to the aggravating factors.

The court held that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and unjust. The court found that the trial judge had misapplied the law in failing to declare the offence a serious violent offence under section 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 2003 (Qld). The court also found that the trial judge had failed to give sufficient weight to the aggravating factors, particularly the respondent's self-intoxication at the time of the offence. The court noted that the parole eligibility date of three years produced an exceptional result, given the seriousness of the offences committed. The court set aside the sentence imposed below and ordered that the respondent be re-sentenced to imprisonment for eight years.

Orders

Orders of the court

The sentence imposed below be set aside.1.

The respondent be sentenced to imprisonment for eight years2. .

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.