The King v Liec Alapayo Manyang

[2023] QCA 92

[2023] QCA 92

COURT OF APPEAL

BOND JA
DALTON JA
BODDICE JA

CA No 297 of 2021
DC No 1348 of 2021

THE KING

v

MANYANG, Liec Alapayo  Applicant

BRISBANE

FRIDAY, 5 MAY 2023

JUDGMENT

BODDICE JA:  On 21 October 2021, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed and in company and one count of common assault.  On that date, the applicant was sentenced to an effective head sentence of three years imprisonment.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal that sentence.

The sole ground of appeal, should leave be granted, is that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

Both offences were committed on 4 October 2020, when the applicant was 18 years of age.  Each concerned the same male complainant, who was aged 21 at the time of the commission of the offences.

On that date, the applicant had travelled with others to a soccer tournament in order to confront the male complainant.  This confrontation occurred in circumstances where, on 8 September 2020, the applicant’s cousin had been attacked, as a consequence of which it is alleged a revenge attack was committed some five days later, resulting in the murder of a man.  The complainant’s brother had been charged as being a party to the alleged murder.

The applicant was one of a group of five who approached the male complainant whilst he was seated in the back-passenger seat of a car.  Initially, the applicant spoke to the complainant through a wound down window.  When the complainant refused to leave the vehicle, the applicant opened the driver’s side door and threw a punch at the complainant’s head.  The complainant described it as weak and not painful.  It was the basis for the count of common assault.

Notwithstanding attempts by a passer-by to de-escalate the situation, and the complainant fleeing towards others at the soccer field, a group of between four and 15 men pursued the complainant.  One of those men was the applicant.  He approached the male complainant and asked to talk, before punching the complainant in the eye three times.  Others in the group joined in and kicked and punched the complainant simultaneously.

During this event, another person came from behind and struck the complainant’s right eye with a hammer.  Whilst the complainant bent over to protect himself, another person struck the complainant on the back with a baseball bat.  Another person brandished a 30-centimetre knife, before someone else attacked the complainant with the hammer.

At that point, the group ran to retrieve weapons from a car boot, including baseball bats, a knife, a machete and a pole.  They returned, as a group, to attack the complainant again.  Fortunately, observers stepped in, acting as a barrier to stop the applicant and his co-offenders from gaining further access to the complainant.  At that point, the applicant and his co-offenders dispersed.

Surprisingly, the complainant sustained relatively minor injuries.  There were no facial fractures, although there was widespread tenderness to various parts of the complainant’s face, a small laceration to the lower lip and an abrasion to the thigh.  The complainant also suffered pain and blurry vision in both eyes, as well as two full thickness margin lacerations to the area of the right eye.

The sentencing judge sentenced the applicant on the basis it was a group attack carried out for the purposes of retribution, in which the applicant and his co-offenders deliberately targeted an unarmed man in a vigilante way, using numerous weapons in a public place.  As a consequence, hundreds of people, including children, were exposed to their violence, which only stopped because of the bravery of others who intervened.

As the sentencing judge properly observed, the applicant’s conduct was persistent and required denunciatory sentences.

Whilst the applicant complains that he was sentenced to three years, eight months imprisonment, the sentencing judge imposed a sentence of three years imprisonment in respect of the more serious count, and a concurrent period of eight months imprisonment for the count of common assault.  Accordingly, the effective head sentence was three years imprisonment.

In imposing those sentences the sentencing judge expressly had regard to the applicant’s youth and lack of prior convictions.  The sentencing judge also had regard to the fact that the applicant had spent some 383 days in pre-sentence custody, which was declared as time served in respect of the sentences.  As a consequence, the applicant’s parole release date was fixed at the date of sentence; namely 21 October 2021.

When regard is had to the applicant’s central role as a leading participant in a persistent public attack, albeit by a youthful offender with no prior criminal history, there is no basis, in my view, to conclude that an effective head sentence of three years imprisonment with immediate parole release fixed after having served 383 days of declared pre-sentence custody, was manifestly excessive.

The applicant’s offending involved a disgraceful attack at a soccer tournament, at which there were hundreds of spectators in attendance.  Reprehensibly, the offending was part of a revenge attack in response to earlier incidents of violence, one of which had resulted in the alleged murder of another male.  There were compelling reasons for the imposition of an effective head sentence of three years imprisonment.  Deterrence and denunciation loomed large.

The applicant’s youth, lack of prior criminal history and cooperation by his pleas of guilty were properly reflected in the fixing of a head sentence of three years, affording him certainty of a release date, and in the setting of a parole release date after having served the declared 383 days in pre-sentence custody.

Such a sentence fell within a sound exercise of the sentencing discretion.  It was neither unreasonable nor plainly unjust.

I would refuse leave to appeal.

DALTON JA:  I agree.

BOND JA:  I agree.  The order of the Court is: Application for leave to appeal refused.