R v Dodd [1998] QCA 323

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1998-09-17|Before: Jersey CJ, Shepherdson J, Cullinane J

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant pleaded guilty to doing grievous bodily harm to the complainant. He was sentenced in the District Court to 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation for consideration of parole after six months. The offence occurred in February this year. The applicant was then and is now 26 years old. He had no relevant prior criminal history.

He struck the complainant with his fist to the side of the complainant's face. It was a king hit fracturing the complainant's jaw in three places, fracturing his chin and chipping and knocking out teeth. The complainant was hospitalised at Quilpie and then Brisbane where he underwent reconstructive surgery which involved wiring and a plate in the chin.

The incident occurred in the evening as the complainant, an engineer, was walking from his motel room to a cafe for dinner. The complainant was working on the Ballera to Mount Isa pipeline project. The applicant was waiting for the complainant at the rear of the motel units. The applicant challenged the complainant on the basis that he was having a go at friends of the applicant who were also working on the pipeline project where the complainant held the position of supervisor.

The complainant offered absolutely no provocation. It has been repeatedly said and rightly that brutal violence leading to serious injury should attract an appropriately deterrent sentence. On the face of this sentence it is, yet the applicant contends that insufficient regard has been had to his plea of guilty, lack of previous convictions, his family and work situations and other wise good reputation and community involvement.

His counsel submits that the term of imprisonment actually to be served should be reduced to the two months already served with the rest of the 18 months imprisonment being suspended.

I disagree with that submission. The sentence imposed was, I consider, an appropriate one which should stand. Certainly manifest excessiveness has not been demonstrated. Of the cases referred to us Tapuaka 192 of 1994 was given six months imprisonment and three years probation but he was only 18 years old and section 9.4 of the Penalties and Sentences Act applied and may have had a moderating influence generally.

Melano [1994] QCA 523; [1995] 2 QdR 186 was a 26 year old imprisoned for 15 months suspended after three months but that offence arose as it was put at page 188 from "a dispute between aggressive young males who had been drinking and between whom there had previously been ill-will which got out of control".

As to Walsh, Sayer and Thompson Nos 158, 159 and 160 of 1998 where six months' imprisonment was wholly suspended, the complainant's own initial provocation featured significantly as a moderating circumstance in that case.

Those circumstances tend to distinguish those cases from this one and I believe significantly. As I say this sentence is one I consider to have been appropriate in all the circumstances and I would refuse the application.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties