TND v Queensland Police Service

Case [2014] QDC 154

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

TND v Queensland Police Service [2014] QDC 154

PARTIES:

TND
(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

DIVISION:

Appellate jurisdiction

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Mount Isa

DELIVERED ON:

18 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 June, 2 July 2014

JUDGE:

Bradley DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the defendant plead guilty to a charge of contravening a protection order made under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 – where the defendant was sentenced to six months imprisonment with immediate release on parole – whether this sentence is manifestly excessive

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 (Qld)

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 13

Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000 (Qld) s 790

Berner v MacGregor [2013] QDC 33

Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Hughes v Hopgood [1950] QWN 21

Pullen v O’Brien [2014] QDC 092

R v Moss [1999] QCA 426

R v Woods [2004] QCA 204

Smith v Ash [2010] QCA 112

Teelow v Commissioner of Police  [2009] QCA 84

COUNSEL:

D Castor, solicitor, for the appellant.

J Goldie, counsel, for the respondent.

SOLICITORS:

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the appellant.

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions Townsville for the respondent.

Background

  1. The appellant was charged with two offences committed in Normanton on 4 March 2014.  The first was that he contravened a protection order made under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012 and the second, that he assaulted a police officer in the performance of the officer’s duty contrary to s 790(1) of the Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000.

  1. The appellant was held in custody overnight and pleaded guilty to the charges the following day on 5 March 2014 in the Magistrates Court at Mount Isa.  The appellant and his solicitor appeared from Normanton by video link.  For the first offence the Magistrate imposed a sentence of six months imprisonment with an immediate release on parole and with a declaration that he had spent two days in presentence custody.  For the second offence the Magistrate imposed a sentence of one month imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of nine months.

  1. The appellant has appealed against the first sentence only on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive. 

Facts

  1. The facts as placed before the Magistrate are that at 830 on 4 March 2014 the aggrieved and the appellant were at a family member’s house drinking.  Upon returning to their home at Woodward Street, Normanton, they went into their bedroom.  The appellant became agitated and accused the aggrieved of getting smart with him.  He punched her to the left side of her face, causing a tooth to cut the inside of her cheek.  The aggrieved threw a work boot at the appellant and left the room.

  1. Police attended at…

Continue reading TND v Queensland Police Service

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
TND v Queensland Police Service [2014] QDC 154
Case
[2014] QDC 154
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, TND, was found to have contravened a protection order made under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 2012. Following a guilty plea, TND was sentenced to six months imprisonment with immediate release on parole. Unsatisfied with the sentence, TND appealed to the court, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Queensland Police Service responded, asserting that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on TND was manifestly excessive. In assessing this, the court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the contravention of the protection order, and the principles of sentencing for such offences. The court noted that contraventions of protection orders are serious offences designed to protect individuals from domestic and family violence. Given the gravity of the offence, the court held that a custodial sentence was appropriate, even with immediate release on parole. The court further examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances, including TND's guilty plea and the potential impact of imprisonment on TND.

In its reasoning, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that a custodial sentence, albeit with immediate parole, was a proportionate response to the seriousness of the offence. The court acknowledged the importance of deterrence and protection of the community but also recognised the potential rehabilitative benefits of the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence did not exceed the bounds of what could be considered reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal was dismissed. TND's sentence of six months imprisonment with immediate release on parole was upheld as not being manifestly excessive. The court's decision affirmed the importance of maintaining appropriate penalties for contraventions of protection orders while also considering the individual circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.