Stanley v C - [1997] QCA 296

[1997] QCA 296

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS J
BYRNE J

CA No 192 of 1997

J H STANLEY

C Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 15/07/97

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Cairns to a charge that he unlawfully assaulted V and thereby did her bodily harm.

V was a five-year-old girl who was in fact the daughter of the applicant. The applicant and the child's mother had been living apart for some time. Pursuant to arrangements which existed at the time the applicant had access by way of possession of the child on each alternate weekend.

On the occasion in question, according to statements made by the applicant to investigating police officers, the child soiled her pants on a number of occasions over the weekend she was in his custody. He became frustrated and, to use his words, he "slapped the child in the face". He apparently told the investigating police that he did not believe that punishment to be excessive considering the actions of the child. The blow to the child's head caused some bruising which was apparent for some hours at least after the incident in question.

Because it was a deliberate blow to the head of a five-year-old child it was in my view a particularly serious offence. It is also relevant to have regard to the applicant's previous convictions for assault in the domestic situation. He pleaded guilty to two charges of unlawful assault in the District Court at Cairns on 20 November 1989. It was agreed that those charges involved assaults on family members.

On each charge he was placed on probation for a period of two years with a condition that he undergo psychiatric counselling as required. The material does not disclose specifically what counselling, if any, he received and his response to it.

On 1 April 1992 he was dealt with in the Cairns Magistrates Court for an offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. On this occasion the complainant was the young girl's mother. He was convicted and fined $600 on that particular occasion. There was a fine option order of 100 hours community service annexed to that order. It also appears from the record that the solicitor who appeared for the applicant informed the Magistrate that there had been a domestic violence order in operation which had expired some months prior to the assault on N.

Against that background the Magistrate recorded a conviction and ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for a period of four months. That conviction and sentence was recorded on 4 May 1997. On 20 May 1997 the applicant was granted bail and has been on bail since.

For the applicant, Mrs McGinness stressed the fact that though there were the previous convictions for assault none of those incidents involved violence towards the child and that this was an isolated blow struck in circumstances of frustration.

In my view notwithstanding those matters, this offence did call for a custodial sentence.

That…

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 Stanley v C

Details

AGLC: Stanley v C [1997] QCA 296
Case: [1997] QCA 296
Decision Date: 15 July 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stanley v C was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant, Stanley, pleaded guilty to assaulting his five-year-old daughter, causing her bodily harm. The assault occurred during a weekend visitation period when the girl soiled her pants multiple times, leading Stanley to slap her in the face. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence, particularly given Stanley's previous convictions for domestic violence and assault. Despite the applicant's arguments that this incident was an isolated event of frustration, the court deemed a custodial sentence necessary due to the gravity of the crime and Stanley's history of violence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly excessive. Stanley's legal representative argued that the assault was a singular act of frustration without prior incidents of violence towards the child and thus should not warrant a lengthy prison sentence. The court, however, considered the cumulative effect of Stanley's prior convictions and the potential for serious harm in such incidents, ultimately concluding that a custodial sentence was appropriate. The court found that while the sentence of four months was at the higher end of the range, it was not excessive.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal upheld the Magistrates Court's decision, rejecting Stanley's appeal against the sentence. The judges emphasized the necessity of imposing a custodial sentence to address the seriousness of the offence and to act as a deterrent. The court also acknowledged the risk of more severe consequences from such violent acts on children. The appeal was dismissed, and a warrant for Stanley's arrest was issued, set to be executed seven days after the judgment to allow for proper notification of the applicant.

Orders