R v Woodman - [2012] QCA 236

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woodman [2012] QCA 236

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODMAN, Gregory Herbert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 122 of 2012
DC No 11 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Emerald

DELIVERED ON:

4 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 August 2012

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where applicant sentenced on one count of entering the dwelling of complainant and assaulting him pursuant to s 419(4) of the Criminal Code – where applicant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with fixed parole release date after six months – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 335, s 419

R v Blenkinsop; R v Blenkinsop [2007] QCA 181, cited
R v Boyd [2009] QCA 8, considered
R v Brelsford[1995] QCA 594, considered
R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276, cited
R v Denham; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2003] QCA 74, considered
R v Leu; R v Togia (2008) 186 A Crim R 240; [2008] QCA 201, considered
R v MAB [2004] QCA 281, considered
R v Wentt [1995] QCA 613, considered

COUNSEL:

J R Hunter SC for the applicant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anne Murray & Co Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by White JA.

WHITE JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Emerald on 10 May 2012 to entering the dwelling of the complainant and assaulting him pursuant to s 419(4) of the Criminal Code. The offence was committed at Rubyvale a year earlier. The applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with release on parole fixed at 10 November 2012, that is, after serving six months.

The applicant was aged 22 years when he committed the offence and 23 at sentence. The complainant was aged 24 years. The applicant had no prior criminal history and was in regular employment.

The applicant’s initial ground of appeal was that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. In his outline, Mr J R Hunter SC for the applicant, sought to amend the application to add a further ground:

“The learned sentencing judge impermissibly sentenced the applicant on the basis that he had committed a separate offence that was not charged.”

However, at the commencement of the hearing he abandoned the application to amend because he had recently been made aware of certain email correspondence between the ODPP and the applicant’s solicitors in April 2012. This can more usefully be discussed after setting out the circumstances of the offending. Those facts were contained in a schedule which was amended…

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 Woodman

Details

AGLC: R v Woodman [2012] QCA 236
Case: [2012] QCA 236
Decision Date: 4 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Woodman, the applicant appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant was convicted of entering the dwelling of a complainant and assaulting him, an offence under section 419(4) of the Criminal Code. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence of 18 months imprisonment, with a fixed parole release date after six months, was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the crime, considering the circumstances and his otherwise unblemished criminal record. The court needed to determine if there were valid grounds for interference with the original sentencing decision, focusing on the principle of proportionality and the overall circumstances of the case.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. It noted that the crime involved a serious breach of personal security, with the applicant entering the complainant's home and assaulting him. However, the court also considered the applicant's remorse and the mitigating factors presented at the sentencing hearing. The court held that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences typically imposed for such offences. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the crime and did not warrant interference.

Consequently, the court refused the application for a new trial or to interfere with the sentence. The reasoning was that the sentence, while harsh, was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court reaffirmed the importance of proportionality in sentencing, but found no grounds to reduce or alter the sentence imposed. The orders of the court were that the application be refused, and the original sentence stand.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Woodman [2012] QCA 236
PARTIES:	R v WOODMAN, Gregory Herbert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 122 of 2012 DC No 11 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Emerald
DELIVERED ON:	4 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 August 2012
JUDGES:	Muir and White JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where applicant sentenced on one count of entering the dwelling of complainant and assaulting him pursuant to s 419(4) of the Criminal Code – where applicant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment with fixed parole release date after six months – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 335, s 419 R v Blenkinsop; R v Blenkinsop [2007] QCA 181, cited R v Boyd [2009] QCA 8, considered R v Brelsford[1995] QCA 594, considered R v Cockfield [2006] QCA 276, cited R v Denham; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2003] QCA 74, considered R v Leu; R v Togia (2008) 186 A Crim R 240; [2008] QCA 201, considered R v MAB [2004] QCA 281, considered R v Wentt [1995] QCA 613, considered
COUNSEL:	J R Hunter SC for the applicant B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Anne Murray & Co Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent