R v Norman[1999] QCA 77

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA

DAVIES JA

THOMAS JA

CA No 378 of 1998

THE QUEEN

v.

ARTHUR RONALD NORMANApplicant

BRISBANE

DATE 18/03/99

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: This application for leave to appeal, heard by telephone, is one relating to an applicant who was convicted after trial of two offences. One was doing grievous bodily harm with intent to do grievous bodily harm, an offence for which the maximum penalty is life imprisonment. The other was attempting to strike a person with a projectile, namely a bullet, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

The case is one in which there was a disagreement between two families who are neighbours. Being irritated by a number of recent events which are referred to again later, the applicant took his rifle and went to the neighbour's house where he fired the rifle repeatedly. He shot one complainant in the head and that gave rise to the more serious count of doing grievous bodily harm with intent. For that offence the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of seven years. For the lesser offence of attempted grievous bodily harm which related to shooting in the direction of another of the neighbours, who was fortunately not hit, five years imprisonment was imposed.

The applicant was 48 years of age at the time of commission of the offences and he had only a minor criminal history. He has explained to us today the basis of his dissatisfaction with the sentences imposed. The principal ground of complaint is that as he said he was awarded the maximum imprisonment. He also says he was not given a non-parole period.

In so far as the first complaint is incorrect, it is unnecessary to say more about it than that the maximum period of imprisonment was not seven years but life. As to the second complaint, that no non-parole period was fixed, that is correct, but there does not seem to have been any particular reason to fix an early recommendation for parole.

The view the primary Judge took of the matter was that the applicant developed a severe rage having had a frustrating morning with a lawnmower, that he was then seriously affected by a notice from the council about his dogs and, beside himself with rage, went to the neighbour's house with the rifle and, the Judge thought, discharged the whole magazine.

The Judge described the injury caused to the neighbour who was hit as a very grave one which could have been fatal but for prompt attention and good medical care. The consequences for that person, the Judge said, were to leave him with a very nervous disposition and some loss of fine movement in the left hand. The other complainant has also suffered, not surprisingly, from psychological disabilities as a result of this incident. 

Of course a bullet wound in the head is often fatal and both the victim and this applicant can count themselves lucky. Had death ensued, the applicant would very likely have been convicted of murder carrying a mandatory life sentence.

In my opinion the sentence imposed could not reasonably be argued to be other than a modest one and the modesty of the sentence imposed was presumably influenced by material before the Judge indicating that the applicant had been a hard-working man and a good family man for many years.

In my opinion the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

PINCUS JA: Mr Norman, in view of the fact that we are all of opinion that the application should be dismissed that is the order which is going to be made. The Court orders that your application for leave to appeal be dismissed and that is now the end of this hearing.

APPELLANT: Okay.