"[21] In R v Bryan; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2003] QCA 18, Williams JA said at [32] of the offence of grievous bodily harm that it is difficult, if not impossible 'to speak meaningfully of a 'range' when considering penalty' because of the great variety of acts which may result in the commission of the offence. The same might well be observed of unlawful wounding. The circumstances and the nature of the injury as well as the permanent consequences thereof will vary greatly and have impact on the appropriate sentence. As Pincus JA commented in Amituanai [1995] QCA 80; [1995] 78 A Crim R 588 at 589
'... for reasons that are evident enough, the offender will find that his punishment may depend on the extent of the damage the victim happens to sustain. That is, the risk that a blow which might by good luck have caused little damage in fact has catastrophic results, as it had here, is one which is shared by the victim and the offender ... The applicant may well, having served a period of imprisonment, leave the whole affair largely behind him; the victim can never do so and his prospects of a happy and useful life are greatly and permanently impaired.'
[22] Thomas J (as his Honour then was) and I agreed with those comments and added at 596-7
'It must also bear in mind that vindication is one of the many functions of the sentencing process, and it is an evident matter in the present case. Unless courts are seen to inflict real punishment, victims and their families may be tempted to exact their own form of revenge. That is not to say that cases may not arise in which this factor will be outweighed by the benefits of rehabilitation.'
[23] Deterrence, as well as vindicating the victims of violence, particularly in the case of street violence by gangs of adolescents and young men is of great importance and is enshrined in the sentencing guidelines in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(c). Street violence which was once regarded as an isolated occurrence is now reported as happening with alarming frequency in our cities and suburbs. No community can contemplate without unease the kind of activity which the facts of these two incidents reveal. This Court has consistently denounced street violence. In Amituanai the offender was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a recommendation for early release after serving nine months which, although described as 'not light' was not interfered with on appeal. The offender was a 26-year-old young man who was celebrating his successful final university results and kicked his victim in the head which caused him to fall and sustain severe head injuries after an altercation at a taxi rank in the suburbs late at night. This occurred after the offender had himself sustained an unprovoked severe blow from a member of the complainant's group which fractured his jaw.
[24] The offender in R v Hoogsaad [2001] QCA 27 was aged 19 when he struck the complainant, a bystander outside a hotel in Ayr at night, with an iron bar around the arms and legs and then inflicted two blows to his head which left him with some serious deficits. There had been an earlier altercation which did not involve the complainant and there was no explanation for the attack. The five year sentence for inflicting grievous bodily harm was not disturbed after a plea of guilty.
[25] In Bryan a knife was used in an unprovoked attack in Brisbane on New Year's Eve with life-threatening consequences for the victim. This Court on an Attorney-General's appeal increased the sentence of four years suspended after 12 months with an operational period of five years after a plea of guilty to one of six years. Both the Chief Justice and Williams JA commented that a serious violent offence declaration may well, if sought, have been appropriately made.
[26] R v Tupou; ex parte A-G(Qld) [2005] QCA 179 was an Attorney-General's appeal where a sentence of three years suspended after nine months with an operational period of three years was increased to the extent of ordering suspension after serving 15 months. The offender, aged 18 years, pleaded guilty to doing grievous bodily harm to a much smaller mildly disabled young man at a taxi rank by punching him in the head and causing him to fall to the ground. The complainant's jaw was broken and he had ongoing problems. The offender subsequently sought to avoid detection and was on a good behaviour bond when he offended. The Chief Justice commented at p 10
'In a number of recent decisions, the Court of Appeal has emphasised the strength of the importance of deterrence in sentencing for violent offending of this general character. The public rightly expects the Courts by their sentences to achieve so much as can be achieved to help ensure the cities of this State are safe places for those who venture out during the night.'
He quoted with approval the observations of Williams JA in Bryan at para 30
'Deterrence must be the major factor influencing sentencing (in these cases). Ordinary citizens must be able to make use of areas such as the Mall, even at night, sure in the knowledge that they will not be savagely attacked. The only way Courts can preserve the rights of citizens to use public areas in going about their own affairs is by imposing severe punishment on those who perpetrate crimes such as this.'
[27] The amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) made by the Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences) Amendment Act 1997 (Qld) provided in s 9(3) that the principle in s 9(2) that imprisonment should be regarded as a last resort did not apply to the sentencing of an offender for an offence that involves violence. The effect of those amendments on the sentencing of youthful offenders, long regarded by sentencing courts as calling for special leniency, was commented on in R v Lovell [1998] QCA 36; [1999] 2 Qd R 79. Each of the members of the Court, Davies and Pincus JJA and Byrne J commented that the amendments had the consequence that the youth of an offender, while still relevant, does not have the weight which it had, especially where violence is used or physical harm caused to another person. It is true that the comments were made in the context of considering whether a term of actual imprisonment should be served by that offender and as Byrne J added at 83
'Nonetheless youth remains a material consideration; for the rehabilitation of youthful, even violent, offenders, especially those without prior, relevant convictions, also serves to protect the community.'
[28] Whilst the rehabilitation of youthful offenders is important it is also important to keep firmly in mind that the court was here sentencing the applicant for two distinct and serious acts of street violence separated only by one month. The applicant has blighted the hopes and aspirations of one young man and devastated the life of the other and brought consequential suffering on their families, particularly in the case of the second complainant. In his case, as was noted by the learned sentencing judge, he himself was part of a gang engaged in street violence.
[29] Whilst the learned sentencing judge might have acknowledged the factors in favour of the applicant by an early recommendation or suspension, not to have done so can not, in my view, be described as being beyond the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion and therefore manifestly excessive."