R v Wilson - [2001] QCA 215

[2001] QCA 215

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS JA
ATKINSON J

CA No 211 of 2000

THE QUEEN

JAMES DAVID WILSON Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 01/06/2001

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence in this case was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the District Court at Brisbane in June 1997 of one count of wounding with intent to disfigure.

The sentence imposed was imprisonment for 13 years with a recommendation for parole after six years. The application is brought before the Court on the basis essentially of the submission that the sentence is manifestly excessive having regard to sentences of what are said to be a comparable kind.

The circumstances of the offence can be summarised as follows. The offence was committed on 4 January 1997 at the complainant's place of employment which was a shop in a well-known shopping centre in Brisbane. The applicant and the complainant had been married in 1989 and there were four children of the marriage. Their relationship was marked by periodic violence on the part of the applicant towards the complainant, in the course of which she was stabbed or injured on more than one occasion. They separated in 1996 after one such attack.

When the complainant later began seeing another man, the applicant threatened her life and members of the family. On 27 December 1996 the applicant went to the complainant's home where she was living with her children and slashed all her clothing, and then he went to her workplace and slashed the tyres of her car.

The threats by him continued for some time, with the applicant on one or more occasions saying he was going to cut off the complainant's lips. As a result, an interim domestic violence order was made by the Magistrates Court. The complainant and her children sought refuge in a women's shelter, and the domestic violence hearing was set down for 6 January 1997.

On 4 January, with the hearing imminent, the applicant went to the complainant's place of employment, doing so in contravention of the interim order that already existed. He was armed with a knife, and in front of other employees, customers and members of the public, he grabbed the complainant by the hair and proceeded to slash her with the knife on her face, arms, back, neck and buttocks. She managed eventually to escape and was helped by a staff member. The applicant then plunged the knife into his own chest and collapsed. His life was saved by prompt medical treatment.

His personal circumstances are that he is, or at the relevant time was, aged 40 years and has an extremely bad criminal record involving offences of violence of various kinds. He was convicted of armed robbery, committed while he was on parole for a conviction of rape. He sustained five convictions for rape between 1977 and 1980 involving three different women. He also has a conviction for attempted carnal knowledge of a girl aged…

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 Wilson

Details

AGLC: R v Wilson [2001] QCA 215
Case: [2001] QCA 215
Decision Date: 01/06/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Wilson, the applicant, James David Wilson, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court at Brisbane. The applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of wounding with intent to disfigure. The sentence imposed was imprisonment for 13 years with a recommendation for parole after six years. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of the nature of the offence and the applicant's criminal history.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicant had a history of violence against the complainant, including multiple stabbings and threats. The attack that led to the conviction was premeditated and carried out in a public place, causing severe physical and psychological harm to the complainant. The Court considered the applicant's extensive criminal record, which included convictions for serious and sexual offences, indicating a pattern of violent and predatory behaviour. The Court also noted the significant impact of the attack on the complainant and her children.

The Court of Appeal held that, given the premeditated nature of the offence, the applicant's extensive criminal history, and the severe consequences for the complainant, a sentence of 13 years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The Court found that while some consideration might have been given to the plea of guilty and the applicant's mental condition, these factors did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders