King v Queensland Police Service - [2019] QDC 131

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	King v Queensland Police Service [2019] QDC 131
PARTIES:	FRANCES JADE KING (appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	98/19
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	29 July 2019 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Cairns
HEARING DATE:	26 and 29 July 2019
JUDGE:	Fantin DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against conviction pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – where the appellant pleaded guilty to three traffic offences, 12 property related offences, one offence of obstruct police and one breach of bail – where the appellant was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment with lesser concurrent sentences and a parole release date after serving five months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Legislation Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9 Cases Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58 R v Dance [2009] QCA 371 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499 R v Howie [2009] QCA 50 R v Jackson [2011] QCA 103 R v Lawley [2007] QCA 243 R v McDowall [2005] QCA 260 R v MCT [2018] QCA 189 R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214 R v Ross [2000] QCA 49 R v Smith [2000] QCA 127 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Williams [2004] QCA 27
COUNSEL:	B Bilic for the Appellant
SOLICITORS:	Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service for the Appellant The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent (C Fresta, solicitor)

HER HONOUR: The appellant pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court at Cairns to 17 offences. They comprise three traffic offences, 12 property related offences, one offence of obstruct police and one breach of bail.

The most serious of those offences was enter premises and commit indictable offence which had a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.

On 15 May 2019, the appellant was convicted and sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Cairns by Acting Magistrate Heggie to a head sentence of 15 months imprisonment with lesser concurrent sentences on the other offences with a parole release date fixed at 4 September 2019. Forty one days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served under the sentence. The effect of the sentences was that she was required to serve approximately five months actual custody before being released on parole.

The appellant appeals pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) against the sentence of 15 months imprisonment on the ground it is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

For the reasons that follow, I would dismiss the appeal.

The appellant was 23 years old and had just turned 24 when the last of the offences was committed. She was 24 at sentence. She had a limited criminal history comprising property offences committed when she was 17 years old.

On 13 April 2012, she was convicted of unauthorised dealing with shop goods. No conviction was recorded. She was sentenced 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read King v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] QDC 131
Decision Date: 29 July 2019 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v Queensland Police Service involved the appellant appealing against his conviction and sentence for multiple offences, including traffic violations, property offences, obstruction of police, and breach of bail. The appeal was brought under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). The appellant, having pleaded guilty to the charges, was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment, with lesser concurrent sentences for other offences, and a parole release date set after serving five months. The appeal contested the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The appellant's counsel argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences, particularly considering the appellant's guilty plea and the lesser sentences for other charges. The court had to assess whether the sentence was within the range of acceptable penalties for the offences committed and whether there was any error in the sentencing process.

The court considered the totality of the appellant's offending, the need for deterrence, and the principles of sentencing proportionality. It reviewed the facts of each offence and the context in which they were committed. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal 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.