Court of Appeal

R v Iese [2017] QCA 068 (16/288) Gotterson and McMurdo JJA and Flanagan J 21 April 2017

Full-text: QCA17-068.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after serving four months for an operational period of two years – where there was evidence before the sentencing judge of goading conduct by the complainant – where the prosecutor described the applicant’s conduct as “largely unprovoked” but did not otherwise challenge the evidence – where the applicant did not rely upon the defence of provocation but claims the complainant’s behaviour was a material consideration in formulating the sentence – where the sentencing judge described the offence as “unprovoked” – whether the sentencing judge failed to take the complainant’s conduct into account – whether the sentencing judge thereby erred in exercising the sentencing discretion – whether the sentence ought be set aside

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment to be suspended after serving four months for an operational period of two years – where the applicant contends the requirement to serve a period of actual custody makes the sentence manifestly excessive – where the applicant demonstrated a high degree of remorse – where the applicant had a minimal criminal record – where the offence was immediately preceded by goading conduct of the complainant – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive