Logan v Jones
[2000] QDC 263
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
- Logan v Jones[2000] QDC 263
- Add to List
Logan v Jones[2000] QDC 263
Logan v Jones[2000] QDC 263
DISTRICT COURT | Appeal No 51 of 1999 |
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE WHITE
EUGENE SEAN LOGAN | Appellant |
and
SGT MICHAEL JOHN JONES | Respondent |
CAIRNS
DATE 11/02/2000
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: The appellant was charged in the Magistrates Court at Georgetown on 16 November 1999 with the following offences:
That on the 27th day of August 1999 at Normanton in the State of Queensland he unlawfully assaulted Anthony Victor Pascoe and thereby did him bodily harm
FURTHER that on the 27th day of August 1999 at Normanton in the State of Queensland he unlawfully assaulted Anita Emma Pascoe and thereby did her bodily harm
To each charge he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to four months' imprisonment to be served concurrently?
MR McLAUGHLIN: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: And convictions recorded. This is an appeal against the severity of those sentences. The facts related to his Worship were that the complainant was walking with a number of people towards the Central Hotel at Normanton when the appellant approached the complainant and wanted to fight him.
The complainant refused to fight. The appellant then punched him to the mouth with his closed fist causing him to fall to the ground. The appellant then kicked the complainant a number of times before grabbing him by the back of the shirt and the left leg, picking him up off the ground and throwing him against the concrete guttering. This was done a second time before the complainant regained sufficient composure to run away and hide.
As a result of the assault the complainant received cuts to his head, forearm, under his left eye, both lips were swollen and sore and there was also grazing to the hands, arms, knees, elbows and bruising to the lower back from where he had been kicked. The complainant was taken to Normanton Hospital for treatment.
The complainant from the other offence, Anita Pascoe, was aged 16 years. She was with the group heading towards the Central Hotel. The male complainant is her older brother. She attempted to intervene in the incident and was punched in the face with a closed fist and fell to the ground. It was also alleged that the appellant briefly kicked and punched her. She received bruising and swelling to her face, temple area and suffered some pain.
The appellant was 19 years of age and he lived at Normanton. He was in full time employment with the Normanton Shire Council.
...
HIS HONOUR: It seems that some hours earlier in the day the appellant and the male complainant had had a fight. It seems that it was against this background that the appellant wanted to resume the fight later in the evening but the complainant was not agreeable to doing so.
The appellant had a criminal history.
...
HIS HONOUR: In 1998 the appellant had a Court appearance for a minor offence which appears to have related to consuming liquor in a public place. Perhaps more relevantly, on 22 April 1999 he was dealt with for behaving in a disorderly manner, using insulting words and a breach of his bail undertaking in respect of those two offences. Whilst those offences cannot be described as offences of violence, it does suggest a disorderly behaviour in a public place.
I do not propose to set out in full the reasons his Worship gave for arriving at the sentences he imposed. It is clear that he was concerned at the severity of the assault, particularly that upon the male complainant. He was concerned at people for no good reason being bashed in the street. I should mention that this is a matter about which I have cause for concern from time to time in this Court when sentencing people.
It seems he accepted that the appellant and the male complainant had had a fight some hours earlier although he did not make express reference to it in his reasons. I must confess that in the circumstances had I been responsible for sentencing this appellant initially, I would have looked for ways to avoid imposing a significant sentence of imprisonment upon a 19 year old in full time employment.
However, I have been reminded of the limited powers of a Court of Appeal by the remarks of the Chief Justice in the Queen v. Michael Charles Hodges CA Number 552 of 1994, Judgment 22 March 1995.
“All of that being said, the assault was a serious one and although the Magistrate may well have dealt with the matter by imposing no custodial term, that is not the question with which this Court is concerned. This Court needs to consider the order which the Magistrate did in fact impose and decide whether it should be asserted that it lay outside any permissible range.”
Therefore considering the matter before me, I again adopt the words of the Chief Justice in respect of it.
“In my view notwithstanding the ameliorating matters to which I have referred, the matters calling perhaps for consideration for mitigation it cannot be said that the sentence is one which could not appropriately have been imposed by the Magistrate and accordingly the sentence cannot be regarded as manifestly excessive.”
I order that the appeal be dismissed.