- Unreported Judgment
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
C.A. No. 106 of 1981
Mr. Justice Lucas S.P.J.
Mr. Justice D.M. Campbell
Mr. Justice Connolly
BRISBANE, 25 JUNE 1981
(Copyright in this transcript is vested in the Crown. Copies thereof must not be made or sold without the written authority of the Chief Court Reporter, Court Reporting Bureau.)
PADDY JOHN FINEGAN
The Honourable The Minister for Justice and Attorney-General of Queensland
MR. JUSTICE LUCAS: This is an appeal against sentence by the Attorney-General in the case of a man who on 7 April 1981 pleaded guilty in the District Court at Mount Isa to an offence of unlawful wounding, and who was put on probation without any special conditions for two years.
The offence was committed on the evening of Christmas Day when the respondent went to a place where a woman named Rae Kathleen Doyle was living, and later the complainant, the man who was injured, a Mr. Kyle, came also to where Mrs. Doyle was living. She was the complainant's de facto wife, and the object of the complainant's visit to the house was to pick up his two children. When he announced that this was his object an altercation took place between them and the respondent in a quite unwarranted and unjustified manner attacked the complainant with a knife, inflicting upon him what appears from what is set out in the record to be a fairly trivial injury but one which resulted in the complainant's spending six days in hospital. It is described in the record as a 1.5 vertical puncture mark.
The unfortunate feature of the case is that the respondent who was a man of 32 years of age, has three convictions which involve violence; one, indeed, of unlawful wounding, and that happened not much more than 12 months before the case with which the Court is concerned at present, and on that occasion he was fined $300. The respondent's difficulty appears to be drink and it is stated on his behalf, as it was before the learned judge, that when he was not affected by drink he was a reliable citizen who was in steady employment and, indeed, there was before the learned judge a reference from the organisation which had employed him for a little more than two years. It does appear that before that he was also in steady employment.
Now, it is evident to me from the record that the judge gave a good deal of thought to the question of what sentence he would impose, and in the end he decided that the respondent was worth one more chance and, as I have said, admitted him to probation for a period of two years. He made it quite clear to the respondent that if he broke his probation he would face a prison sentence in respect of this offence. The sentence which was imposed is not necessarily - indeed not probably - the sentence that I would myself have imposed but having regard to all the circumstances and the good behaviour of the respondent except during his periods of intoxication I find myself unable to say it is a sentence with which I am in substantial disagreement, and for that reason I would dismiss the appeal.
MR. JUSTICE D.M. CAMPBELL: I agree.
MR. JUSTICE CONNOLLY: I agree.
MR. JUSTICE LUCAS: That will be the order of the Court.
- Published Case Name:
The Queen v Paddy John Finegan
- Shortened Case Name:
R v Finegan
 CCA 66
Lucas SPJ, D M Campbell J, Connolly J
23 Jun 1981
No Litigation History