R v Jones [2000] QCA 84

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2000-03-17|Before: Pincus JA, Davies JA, Pherson JA

The applicant's guilty plea must of course be taken into account but there is no reason to think the learned sentencing Judge did not do so. Indeed, his Honour said he did. However, his Honour said correctly that it was inevitable that the applicant would have been convicted and his Honour thought that the applicant realised that. His Honour said that he did not think the applicant's plea showed any great degree of true remorse.

Mr Moynihan for the applicant urged before this Court that the guilty plea demonstrated a degree of remorse and in his written outline refers to a statement in the joint judgment of the High Court in Signato v. The Queen (1998) 73 ALJR 162 at par [22] in which their Honours said that a guilty plea is usually evidence of some remorse on the part of the offender.

In the present case the learned sentencing Judge was in my view correct in his conclusion. Indeed, I doubt whether the guilty plea was evidence of any remorse at all. The case was as I have already indicated an overwhelming one against the applicant and he must have realised that.

Next it is said on the part of the applicant before us that the learned sentencing Judge failed to give sufficient regard to and apply the principles properly applicable in part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act. To some extent it seems to me the question in this appeal depends on what was the appropriate range of sentencing for this offence allowing some discount for the guilty plea.

On the applicant's behalf it was submitted that the range was six to eight years, on the respondent's behalf it was contended that the range was eight to 10 years. On the former view if a declaration were to be made the appropriate sentence would have been six years. On the other hand if the respondent's submission is correct the appropriate sentence with a declaration would have been eight years. (See Bojovic CA4/99 judgment delivered 8 June 1999)

It is true that the applicant has no history of violence in the past at least so far as can be ascertained from his criminal history. On the other hand, as has been conceded by Mr Moynihan on his behalf, the extent of violence involved in this case was very substantial.

I have had regard to the cases which have been referred to by both the applicant and the respondent in their written outlines. The applicant's cases were Hammond [1997] QdR 195; Quinn, CA422/96 and Smith, CA113/93. However, in none of these was there violence of the kind described here and those sentences really only give some guidance in respect of less serious offences than the present one.

On the other hand the respondent referred to Jewell, CA75/94; Haines, CA24/98 and Bradford, CA327/97. In Jewell, in which a sentence of nine years imprisonment was upheld, there was no physical violence although a shotgun was discharged. In Haines, which was a sentence of eight years, although no actual violence was involved, the applicant placed the muzzle of a weapon against the complainant's forehead causing the complainant, not unreasonably to believe he was going to be shot. It caused him significant psychological damage. In Bradford, which was an eight year sentence the complainant was hit on the head and elsewhere with the blunt end of a machete. He required a number of stitches for his injury.

In none of the cases to which I have referred was there a declaration of the kind made here. However, in none of them was the degree of violence as serious and as sustained as it was here. Although none of those cases is closely comparable to this they tend to show that although the sentence imposed here when the declaration is taken into account was a high one it was not manifestly excessive and having regard to the seriousness of the violence involved here I think that the declaration was appropriate. For those reasons I would refuse the application.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (10 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)