CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 – whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether erroneous characterisation of offending insufficient - whether weight on early guilty plea, remorse and apology – whether undue weight on previous convictions.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the Appellant
The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent
Introduction
On 18 June 2021, the appellant was convicted on his own plea of guilty in the Magistrates Court held in Cairns, of contravention of domestic violence order, serious assault police officer and obstruct police and he was sentenced to an effective 15 months of imprisonment with a parole release date set at one third of the sentence.
The appellant now appeals his sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive. The appellant argues that the sentence was manifestly excessive because:
1.The sentencing magistrate erred by the characterisation of the appellant’s offending as being coupled with other offending similar to the cases placed before him;
2.the sentencing magistrate erred by not placing sufficient weight on the appellant’s early guilty plea, remorse and apology to officers;
3.the sentencing magistrate erred by not placing sufficient weight on the principle that despite an offender’s previous convictions the sentence imposed must not be disproportionate to the gravity of the current offence.
The appeal is opposed. The respondent argues that the sentence was within the permissible range for concurrent sentences for the whole offending.
On my…
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 WPT v QPS
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
WPT v QPS [2021] QDC 250
Case
[2021] QDC 250
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case before the court was an appeal by the defendant, WPT, against his conviction and sentence imposed by a lower court. WPT was found guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal was brought under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886, focusing on whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Additionally, WPT argued that the trial judge had made errors in characterising the offending, placed undue weight on his early guilty plea, remorse, and apology, and excessively considered his previous criminal history.
The court considered the legal principles governing the assessment of sentence severity and the factors that should be taken into account when determining an appropriate punishment. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had erred in characterising the offending, including by placing undue emphasis on certain factors. The court also assessed whether the weight attributed to the defendant's early guilty plea, expressions of remorse, and apology were appropriate, and whether the trial judge had given undue consideration to the defendant's previous criminal history.
After a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles and the circumstances of the case, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had correctly characterised the offending and had appropriately considered the various factors in determining the sentence. The court held that the trial judge had not placed undue weight on the defendant's early guilty plea, remorse, and apology, nor had they given undue consideration to the defendant's previous criminal history. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.