The Queen v Comerford
[1997] QCA 309
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- The Queen v Comerford[1997] QCA 309
- Add to List
The Queen v Comerford[1997] QCA 309
The Queen v Comerford[1997] QCA 309
COURT OF APPEAL
MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA
de JERSEY J
CA No 274 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.
DARREN COMERFORDApplicant
BRISBANE
DATE 27/08/97
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant in this case was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment for an offence of unlawful wounding which occurred on 15 December 1996. It involved the use of a glass in hotel premises or general hotel area upon the complainant. The applicant had no prior criminal convictions and he was a young man, 21 years of age.
The circumstances were that the complainant had been to a party at a Brisbane suburban tavern and he left at about 1 a.m. Just outside the hotel premises he was talking to a woman whose name he did not know and after he had been talking to her for a short period he was struck from behind in the face with a glass. He said he had done nothing to provoke any such behaviour and the Judge has found that this was so. He was seriously wounded and the charge of unlawful wounding resulted from that.
In his lower face and chin area he was in need of remedial care and medical attention and he had to have a total of 50 stitches inserted to assist in that respect. He also lost three of his teeth.
The sentencing Judge had no difficulty in accepting the complainant's version. The applicant pleaded not guilty, but was found guilty after trial. The Judge observed that he felt it was a case where a deterrent sentence should be imposed because of the serious nature and the circumstances in which it had been committed. He took into account the fact that the applicant was a young man with no previous convictions.
On the other hand, he observed that there were no mitigating factors, such as remorse, and he sentenced the applicant accordingly to imprisonment for 18 months without making any particular recommendation.
We had our attention drawn to a number of cases and they can be listed or some of them can be listed, Vickery, Melano, Hamilton and Darwin. They were cases which, in one way or another, can be regarded as rather comparable, although of course the circumstances vary to some extent, as is inevitable, between those cases and the present one.
But, speaking for myself, looking at the sentences imposed in those cases there is no feeling prompted by them that the sentence imposed in this case was what could be described as out of line. The sentence by its nature and in its circumstances called for an effective deterrent and the Judge has not overlooked this factor.
In all the circumstances, I do not consider that the sentence imposed calls for interference and I would refuse the application.
DAVIES JA: I agree.
de JERSEY J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.