The Queen v Couch Summary

[1992] QCA 233

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA
PINCUS JA

CA No 37 of 1992

THE QUEEN

DARRELL JAMES COUCH (Appellant)

BRISBANE

16 JULY 1992

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence following a conviction on 9 January 1992. The applicant had been charged with murder as a result of a death occurring in December 1990. He was found guilty after trial of manslaughter and was sentenced to ten years imprisonment, the sentencing Judge saying that he took into account that the applicant had already served 13 months in prison. The learned sentencing Judge also expressly took into account the fact that the applicant was affected by alcohol at the time the offence was committed.

The applicant had some criminal history but there were no offences of violence. The material showed the offences, such as there were, occurred between 1963 and 1968. He was a 45 year old. The case, it seems to me, was a bad one, judged in terms of the possible circumstances which can arise in manslaughter cases.

In brief, the applicant and the deceased had been arguing at the applicant's residence, or near the front of it, for some ten minutes or so. The applicant had a loaded shotgun and he intentionally discharged it when the deceased was about a mere four or five feet away from him. He knew the gun was loaded. His claim later was that he intended to fire it over the head
of the deceased. The jury was obviously not satisfied as to the intention relevant on a murder count.

Each manslaughter case must be judged on its own circumstances. There was no immediate emergency in this case occurring prior to the applicant's discharging of the weapon. It is not as though the deceased made any threatening movements towards the applicant. The dispute had continued for some ten minutes or so and the weapon was then fired at point blank range, the main effect of the blast taking the deceased in the chest.

Obviously a wide range of sentences will be applicable to cases of manslaughter. Even allowing for the effect of the 13 months spent in custody prior to sentence, I am not persuaded that the term of 10 years imprisonment imposed by the learned Judge was excessive so that it should be interfered with and I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Couch, the appellant, Darrell James Couch, sought leave to appeal against his sentence following a conviction of manslaughter. Couch had been charged with murder in relation to a death that occurred in December 1990. The trial resulted in a guilty verdict for manslaughter, with the sentencing Judge imposing a term of ten years imprisonment, taking into account the 13 months Couch had already served in prison and the fact that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence. Couch, who had a criminal history but no prior violent offences, discharged a loaded shotgun at the deceased from a distance of approximately four to five feet during an argument. He claimed to have intended to fire the gun over the deceased's head, but the jury did not accept this as a defence for murder.

The legal issues in this appeal centred on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the sentencing Judge, particularly whether the term of ten years was excessive given the circumstances of the case. The Court of Appeal needed to determine whether the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for manslaughter and whether there were any grounds for interfering with the Judge's discretion in sentencing.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of ten years was not excessive, despite the appellant's prior imprisonment. The Chief Justice noted that each manslaughter case must be assessed based on its unique circumstances, and in this case, there was no immediate emergency justifying the discharge of the weapon. The Court agreed with the sentencing Judge's consideration of the mitigating factors, including Couch's prior incarceration and the influence of alcohol. As such, the appeal against the sentence was refused, and the original sentence was upheld.

The Court of Appeal's judgment resulted in the refusal of the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The ten-year imprisonment term for manslaughter, as determined by the sentencing Judge, was deemed appropriate and was not to be interfered with.

The Queen v Couch

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established