DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Forbes v Copely [2018] QDC 171
PARTIES:
PLAIN CLOTHES SENIOR CONSTABLE BEN FORBES
(appellant)v
ERROL FRANCIS COPELY
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
APPEAL NO: 58/2018
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
24 August 2018
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
29 June 2018
JUDGE:
Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:
1. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
2. The sentence of the Magistrates Court imposed on 7 March 2018 for the offence of taking a protected animal is varied by:
a. Substituting a fine of $3000 fine in lieu of the fine of $500, and
b. Subject to an application for a fine option order, I direct the Registrar to refer to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for appropriate payment arrangements.
3. Otherwise all the orders made by the Magistrates court on 7 March 2018 are affirmed including not recording a conviction.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 - conviction – taking a protected animal – mode of hearing of appeal – whether error of law – relevant sentencing considerations - whether sentence manifestly inadequate.
Legislation
Environmental Protection and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2004 (Qld) s 89.
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 132C.
Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 222, 223, 227.
Nature Conservation (Wildlife Management) Regulation 2006 (Qld) s 351.
Nature Conservation (Wildlife) Regulation 2006 (Qld) Sch 3, Part 1, s 6.
Nature Conservation Act 1992 (Qld) ss 4, 88, 169, 351.
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 9, 44, 48, 51, 53, 54.
Territory Parks and Wildlife Act 1977 (NT) s 66.Cases
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170
Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172
Chatto v Kruf [2007] NTSC 55
Chatto v Kruf [2007] NTSC 61Department of Environment and Heritage Protection v Kerr, Vass, Levitt and Lago (Unreported, Townsville Magistrates Court, 15 April 2014, Magistrate Mosch).
Department of Environment and Science v Bowie and Matthew (Unreported, Innisfail Magistrates Court, 12 March 2018, Magistrate McLennan).Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Dwyer v Calco Timbers (2008) 234 CLR 124
Forrest v Commissioner of Police [2017] QCA 132, 5.
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 60
McDonald v Queensland Police Service [2017] QCA 255Norbis v Norbis (1986) 161 CLR 513
R v Kusu, Kusu, and Williams (Unreported, Qld District Court, 15 October 2003, Boulton DCJ)
R v Perini; ex parte A-G (Qld) (No 2) [2011] QCA 384
Rue & Fanna v Leavy [2005] QDC 110Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84
SOLICITORS: B Kennedy of the Queensland Police Service Legal Unit for the appellant.
M Wright of Preston Law for the respondent.
On 7 March 2018, the respondent was convicted after pleading…
Continue reading Forbes v Copely
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Forbes v Copely [2018] QDC 171
- Case
- [2018] QDC 171
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court was manifestly inadequate. The Court had to consider whether the sentence was so inadequate that it demonstrated a failure to appropriately recognise the seriousness of the offence, and whether there had been an error of law in the sentencing process. The Court was also required to consider the relevant sentencing principles and guidelines to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate.
In allowing the appeal, the Court found that the sentence of $500 was manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances. The Court considered the seriousness of the offence, the appellant’s culpability, and the need for general deterrence. The Court held that the sentence did not appropriately recognise the seriousness of the offence or adequately fulfil the purposes of sentencing. The Court varied the sentence by substituting a fine of $3000 in lieu of the original fine, and directed the Registrar to refer to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for appropriate payment arrangements. The Court affirmed all other orders made by the Magistrates Court, including not recording a conviction.
The Court’s decision highlights the importance of appropriately considering the seriousness of an offence and the principles of sentencing when imposing a sentence. The Court’s reasoning demonstrates the need for a sentence to adequately reflect the culpability of the offender and to serve the purposes of sentencing, including general deterrence. The final orders of the Court reflect the appropriate punishment for the offence committed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal against sentence is allowed.
2. The sentence of the Magistrates Court imposed on 7 March 2018 for the offence of taking a protected animal is varied by:
a. Substituting a fine of $3000 fine in lieu of the fine of $500, and
b. Subject to an application for a fine option order, I direct the Registrar to refer to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry for appropriate payment arrangements.
3. Otherwise all the orders made by the Magistrates court on 7 March 2018 are affirmed including not recording a conviction.
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.