R v Worland

[2002] QCA 123

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Worland [2002] QCA 123
PARTIES:	R v WORLAND, Shane Daniel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 256 of 2001 SC No 542 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 April 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2002
JUDGES:	Davies and Williams JJA and Douglas J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM – SENTENCING – where applicant convicted of grievous bodily harm for a premeditated “gangland” style attack which resulted in victim’s throat cut and two fingers severed – where sentence of 6 years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration imposed – whether there is any disparity between the applicant’s sentence and that of a co-offender who received 5 years imprisonment without a declaration – whether a declaration should have been imposed - application dismissed
COUNSEL:	S J Hamlyn-Harris for the applicant S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. THE COURT:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of 6 years imprisonment, with a serious violent offence declaration, imposed after he was found guilty by the jury of grievous bodily harm.  Others were involved in the criminal activity which resulted in the applicant’s conviction, and the principal submission made by counsel on his behalf was that there was a disparity between the sentence imposed on the applicant and that imposed on a co-offender, Johnston.  It was submitted that considerations of parity required this Court to remove the serious violent offence declaration.

1. The offence occurred on 18 June 1999.  On that date a young man named Ware had his throat cut, and two fingers cut off his left hand.  He was gravely injured but survived the attack.  The Crown case was that there was an agreement between at least five people that at least serious harm be occasioned to Ware.  The background to the plan was as follows.  A man named Harvey paid fines so that the de facto partner of Ware could be released from custody.  Ware was known to be a person who manufactured methylamphetamines.  The arrangement was that Ware would repay Harvey by doing a methylamphetamine cook.  In order to obtain the finance for the equipment and ingredients Harvey obtained money from the Vagabonds motorbike gang.  An amount of $5,000 was mentioned.  Harvey set Ware up in a motel room but did not provide Ware with the necessary acid.  The motel owner evicted Ware along with all his possessions, which included the equipment and ingredients required for the amphetamine cook.  Ware hid those possessions in an area adjacent to a car park.  When he returned to retake possession of that property he found it designated a…