Dennis Michael Gray v The Queen - [2004] ACTCA 12

DENNIS MICHAEL GRAY v THE QUEEN
[2004] ACTCA 12 (23 June 2004)

CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – appellant pleaded guilty to one count of causing a bushfire – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether appropriate weight was given to the circumstances of the appellant – offence committed when state of extreme fire emergency –sentence not manifestly excessive.

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 105
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 341

Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 655

Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 33-2003
No. SCC 29 of 2003

Judges: Crispin P, Gray and Lander JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date: 23 June 2004

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 33-2003
  )          No. SCC 29 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:DENNIS MICHAEL GRAY
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Lander JJ
Date:  23 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE     )          No. ACTCA 33-2003
  )          No. SCC 29 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL )

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:DENNIS MICHAEL GRAY
Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN
Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Lander JJ
Date:  23 June 2004
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY and LANDER JJ

The appellant appeals against a sentence imposed upon him by a judge of this Court on 25 September 2003.

The appellant was charged with causing a bushfire, contrary to s 105 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The elements of the offence are that he intentionally caused the fire and was reckless about the spread of the fire to vegetation on property belonging to someone else.

He pleaded guilty. His plea, of course, was an admission to both elements of the offence. The maximum penalty provided for in the Code is 15 years’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years, the non-parole period to commence on 25 September 2003 and to expire after two and a half years on 25 March 2006.

The sentencing judge took into account in imposing the sentence that the appellant had spent 14 weeks in custody before the sentence was imposed.

Numerous grounds have been advanced on behalf of the appellant.

A Statement of Facts was agreed by the appellant and prosecuting counsel and placed before the sentencing judge.

At about 11.00 pm on 22 January 2003, two security officers, who were standing outside the Chifley on Northbourne Hotel, saw the appellant near the corner of Masson Street and Northbourne Avenue in Turner. He was crouched down near the fence surrounding a building site and was using a lighter to set fire to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Dennis Michael Gray v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Dennis Michael Gray v The Queen [2004] ACTCA 12
Case: [2004] ACTCA 12
Decision Date: 23 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Dennis Michael Gray v The Queen*, the appellant, Dennis Michael Gray, appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal of Western Australia against the sentence imposed upon him following a guilty plea to one count of causing a bushfire. The central dispute concerned whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had given appropriate weight to the circumstances of the appellant.

The Court of Criminal Appeal was required to determine two primary legal issues: first, whether the sentence of imprisonment imposed was demonstrably too severe, and second, whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered all relevant mitigating factors pertaining to the appellant's personal circumstances.

The Court reasoned that the offence was committed during a state of extreme fire emergency, a factor that significantly heightened the gravity of the appellant's conduct. Applying the principles of sentencing, the Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, considering the serious nature of the offence and the prevailing dangerous conditions. The Court concluded that the sentencing judge had properly weighed the circumstances of the appellant against the objective seriousness of the crime.

Consequently, the Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.