R v Wilson [2001] QCA 215

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-06-01|Before: Pherson JA, Williams JA, Atkinson J

The applicant has an appalling criminal record, details of which have been set out by the learned presiding Judge. It is not usual to find in a criminal history five convictions for rape involving three separate women over a period of some three years. That, to my mind, indicates the character of person that the Court is here concerned with.

It should also be noted that his first conviction resulting in imprisonment was on 8 October 1975 when he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

What makes the circumstances of the present offence far worse than normal is the degree of pre-planning and the specific intent that was involved.

On 28 December 1996 the applicant telephoned the complainant and quite specifically told her of his intent to attack her at her place of employment and to inflict serious injury upon her. That threat was repeated over the ensuing weeks. He made a threat to kill her with a knife in front of customers. He made another threat to scar her so badly that no man would look at her after which he would kill himself. Finally, he made a threat to cut off her lips.

In the light of those threats the complainant obtained a domestic violence order which was served on the applicant. Thereafter he purchased a knife, and taking that knife with him on 4 January 1997 went to her place of employment. He there very calculatedly and deliberately carried out the threat that he had earlier made to disfigure her at her place of employment.

There were a number of slashes and stabs with the knife. Her face, arms, back, neck and buttocks sustained injury. She has been permanently disfigured and that, of course, has had significant psychiatric impact on her, and also on the children of the marriage. That was the intent of the applicant.

Therefore this was a very carefully pre-planned assault with an intent to disfigure carried out in the light of the fact that a domestic violence order had been obtained and in spite of the fact that the applicant knew that the police had been alerted to the threats that had been made. It was one of the worst examples, in my view, of the offence of wounding with intent to disfigure.

Whilst cases such as Campbell, CA No 187 of 1994, 3 August 1994 can be distinguished, nevertheless the fact that a sentence of 13 years imprisonment for causing grievous bodily harm with intent was there upheld demonstrates that there are cases where an offence of this nature may result in a sentence of about 13 years imprisonment.

Whilst the injuries sustained by the complainant in Campbell's case were more serious, it should be noted that the offender there had no previous convictions.

The learned presiding Judge in his reasons referred to Nelson, CA 271 of 1981 where a sentence of six years imprisonment was increased on appeal to 10 years for the offence of grievous bodily harm with intent to disfigure.

As was noted, that was a case where acid was thrown on the face of the woman. What in my view is significant is that Nelson had no criminal history. If 10 years was the appropriate sentence in Nelson's case then, given this man's criminal history, I am not satisfied that a sentence of 13 years imprisonment here was manifestly excessive.

In all the circumstances, bearing in mind the factors that I have highlighted in these reasons, I am not persuaded that the sentence is manifestly excessive. I therefore agree that leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

ATKINSON J: I agree for the reasons given by Mr Justice McPherson and Justice Williams that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)