//
[1995] QCA 399
General information, not legal advice.
Court of Appeal (Qld)
1995-07-26
Act J, MacRossan CJ, Davies JA, Ambrose J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant was wearing heavy walking boots when he was seen to kick the deceased. He was later seen near the body by a security officer who noticed blood on one of his hands and on both of his boots.
The full extent of the deceased's injuries can to some extent be gleaned by the evidence of a pathologist who examined his body. He had extensive bruising and swelling around both eyes extending to both cheeks, numerous lacerations of the corners of his eyes and below the left eye, lacerations and abrasions to the right cheek one of which extended from the lobe of the ear down past the corner of the jaw and lacerations to the forehead extending up into the hairline, bruising and swelling of both ears with the right earlobe partially torn away and amputated, multiple fractures of the nose and multiple fractures of the bones of the left cheek, substantial bruising of the head and body and fractures of the left, third and fourth ribs.
Plainly this was a cold and brutal attack on a small, drunken and defenceless man. What was observed by an eye witness and the nature of the deceased's injuries indicate the considerable savagery of the attack.
In my view the learned sentencing Judge was justified in concluding that the offence was a particularly heinous one. It must be borne in mind in considering this question that the jury must have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant intended the death or grievous bodily harm of his victim.
Consequently, cases referred to by Mr Rafter on behalf of the applicant involving offences of manslaughter are of little assistance in determining this question.
Once it is accepted that the learned sentencing Judge was entitled to conclude as he did that the offence was a particularly heinous one, it seems to me to follow that he was justified in imposing the maximum term of detention, the offence being one of murder.
I should add that reference was made to the applicant's previous offences. He had a criminal record dating from 1992 involving convictions for offences of dishonesty on four occasions, some of them are of multiple offences.
However, I do not think that the applicant's previous history is of more than marginal relevance to the questions which the learned sentencing Judge had to determine. I would refuse the application.
R
Carroll [1995] QCA 399