Lilico v Meyers - [2003] QCA 16

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Lilico v Meyers [2003] QCA 16

PARTIES:

THOMAS JAMES LILICO
(appellant/applicant)
v
FEDERAL AGENT PATRICK MEYERS
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 7 of 2003
DC No 6 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 January 2003

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed
2. Appeal allowed
3. Sentence varied by deleting the provision that the applicant be released after serving one month, and inserting in lieu thereof a provision that the applicant be released after serving 14 days of the sentence imposed

CATCHWORDS:

AVIATION – OFFENCES IN RELATION TO AVIATION – COMMONWEALTH OFFENCES – PENALTY – where appellant threatened to hijack an aircraft – where custodial sentence imposed – whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PURPOSE OF SENTENCE – DETERRENCE – whether desirable to deter aggressive conduct by individuals during air travel

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where fresh evidence as to good character was placed before District Court – whether insufficient weight given to fresh evidence by learned District Court Judge

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 17A(1)
Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 (Cth), s 24(2)(b)

COUNSEL:

B M Murray for the applicant
P M Usher for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence initially imposed in the Cairns Magistrates Court. The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge alleging that on 1 January 2003 at Cairns Airport he made a statement that he knew to be false from which it could reasonably be inferred that there was a threat to endanger the safety of a Division 3 aircraft Qantas Flight 800, namely that he was going to pull a knife out and hijack the plane, contrary to s 24 (2)(b) of the Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 (Cth). The Magistrate, for reasons which he published, convicted the applicant, sentenced him to a term of imprisonment for three months, but ordered, pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), that the sentence be suspended after one month upon the applicant entering into a recognisance in the sum of $3,000.00 to be of good behaviour for a period of 12 months.

From that sentence the applicant appealed to the District Court pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886, and upon the matter coming on for hearing before Judge Noud on 8 January 2003 leave was given to the applicant to adduce further evidence (s 223(2)) in the form of references supporting…

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 Lilico v Meyers

Details

AGLC: Lilico v Meyers [2003] QCA 16
Case: [2003] QCA 16
Decision Date: 5 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by Lilico, who was convicted of threatening to hijack an aircraft. The conviction and sentence were handed down by the District Court of New South Wales, with Lilico now seeking to appeal the sentence imposed. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence and whether it was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

The primary legal issues in the appeal centred on the principles of sentencing, specifically the purposes of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence. The court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate to deter aggressive conduct by individuals during air travel. Additionally, the court examined whether the District Court had given sufficient weight to fresh evidence regarding Lilico's good character when determining the sentence.

The court found that the District Court had not adequately considered the fresh evidence relating to Lilico's good character, which was a significant mitigating factor. Moreover, the court concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. However, the court deemed that the initial release condition, which required Lilico to serve only one month of the sentence, was too lenient. The court varied the sentence, ordering that Lilico be released after serving 14 days instead.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was allowed, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied by substituting a release condition of 14 days in place of one month.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed

2. Appeal allowed

3. Sentence varied by deleting the provision that the applicant be released after serving one month, and inserting in lieu thereof a provision that the applicant be released after serving 14 days of the sentence imposed

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.

CITATION:	Lilico v Meyers [2003] QCA 16
PARTIES:	THOMAS JAMES LILICO (appellant/applicant) v FEDERAL AGENT PATRICK MEYERS (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 7 of 2003 DC No 6 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 January 2003
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed 2. Appeal allowed 3. Sentence varied by deleting the provision that the applicant be released after serving one month, and inserting in lieu thereof a provision that the applicant be released after serving 14 days of the sentence imposed
CATCHWORDS:	AVIATION – OFFENCES IN RELATION TO AVIATION – COMMONWEALTH OFFENCES – PENALTY – where appellant threatened to hijack an aircraft – where custodial sentence imposed – whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PURPOSE OF SENTENCE – DETERRENCE – whether desirable to deter aggressive conduct by individuals during air travel CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where fresh evidence as to good character was placed before District Court – whether insufficient weight given to fresh evidence by learned District Court Judge Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 17A(1) Crimes (Aviation) Act 1991 (Cth), s 24(2)(b)
COUNSEL:	B M Murray for the applicant P M Usher for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Wettenhall Silva Solicitors for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent