Quirk v Steginga - [2010] QDC 304

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Quirk v Steginga [2010] QDC 304

PARTIES:

NATASHA LEE QUIRK

(Appellant)

V

SENIOR CONSTABLE J STEGINGA

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BD429/2010

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Wynnum Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

28 July 2010 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 July 2010

JUDGE:

Irwin DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   The sentence imposed by the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 13 January 2010 for the charge of common assault is set aside.

3.   The order of the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 13 January 2010 revoking the probation order made on 4 January 2010 for the charge of stealing and resentencing for that charge is set aside.

4.   On the charge of common assault:

(a) The appellant, subject to her consent, will be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of 12 months from this date under section 92(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld);

(b)   A conviction be recorded;

(c)    The appellant is to pay compensation in the sum of $500 to the complainant. The proper officer of the court is, under section 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1994 (Qld), to give particulars of the amount of compensation to SPER for registration under that section.

5.   On the charge of stealing:

(a)    The probation order made on 4 January 2010 is revoked;

(b) The appellant, subject to her consent, will be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of 12 months from this date under section 92(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld);

(c)    A conviction be recorded.

6.   No order as to costs.

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant pleaded guilty on 13 January 2010 to one count of common assault committed on 15 November 2009 in a railway carriage in the presence of an elderly woman – where the complainant suffered unspecified injuries as a result of the assault – where the appellant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment at the end of which she was released on 12 months probation – where the appellant was also ordered to pay $500 compensation to the complainant within 6 months, in default 10 days imprisonment – where the appellant pleaded guilty on the same date for an offence of breach of bail committed on 12 January 2010 and was convicted and not further punished – where the appellant was dealt with on the same date for breach of a probation order on which she had been released on 4 January 2010 for an offence of stealing – where the magistrate revoked the probation order but it was otherwise not clear from his sentencing remarks and the court records whether the appellant had been resentenced for the offence of stealing, and if so, as to how she had been resentenced – where the appeal proceeded on…

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 Quirk v Steginga

Details

AGLC: Quirk v Steginga [2010] QDC 304
Case: [2010] QDC 304
Decision Date: 28 July 2010 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Quirk v Steginga was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the appellant, Quirk, challenged the sentences and orders imposed by the Wynnum Magistrates Court. The Wynnum Magistrates Court had convicted Quirk of common assault and stealing, revoked a prior probation order for a separate charge of stealing, and imposed a new sentence. The appeal contested the sentence for the charge of common assault and the revocation of the probation order for the charge of stealing. The central legal issues were whether the sentence for the common assault was appropriate and whether the revocation of the probation order for the stealing charge was justified.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence for the charge of common assault was manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the original sentence, which involved imprisonment, did not align with the principles of sentencing in Queensland. The court also determined that the revocation of the probation order for the stealing charge was not warranted because the circumstances of the new offence did not justify such a severe response. The appeal was allowed on these grounds, leading to the setting aside of the sentences and orders by the Wynnum Magistrates Court. The Court of Appeal then imposed new sentences that included supervision orders, convictions, and the payment of compensation for the charge of common assault. The probation order for the stealing charge was revoked, and a new supervision order was issued. The Court of Appeal did not order any costs related to the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The sentence imposed by the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 13 January 2010 for the charge of common assault is set aside.

3. The order of the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 13 January 2010 revoking the probation order made on 4 January 2010 for the charge of stealing and resentencing for that charge is set aside.

4. On the charge of common assault:

(a) The appellant, subject to her consent, will be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of 12 months from this date under section 92(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld);

(b) A conviction be recorded;

(c) The appellant is to pay compensation in the sum of $500 to the complainant. The proper officer of the court is, under section 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1994 (Qld), to give particulars of the amount of compensation to SPER for registration under that section.

5. On the charge of stealing:

(a) The probation order made on 4 January 2010 is revoked;

(b) The appellant, subject to her consent, will be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of 12 months from this date under section 92(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld);

6. No order as to costs.

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:	Quirk v Steginga [2010] QDC 304
PARTIES:	NATASHA LEE QUIRK (Appellant) V SENIOR CONSTABLE J STEGINGA (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BD429/2010
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Wynnum Magistrates Court
DELIVERED ON:	28 July 2010 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 July 2010
JUDGE:	Irwin DCJ
ORDER:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. The sentence imposed by the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 13 January 2010 for the charge of common assault is set aside. 3. The order of the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 13 January 2010 revoking the probation order made on 4 January 2010 for the charge of stealing and resentencing for that charge is set aside. 4. On the charge of common assault: (a) The appellant, subject to her consent, will be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of 12 months from this date under section 92(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld); (b) A conviction be recorded; (c) The appellant is to pay compensation in the sum of $500 to the complainant. The proper officer of the court is, under section 34 of the State Penalties Enforcement Act 1994 (Qld), to give particulars of the amount of compensation to SPER for registration under that section. 5. On the charge of stealing: (a) The probation order made on 4 January 2010 is revoked; (b) The appellant, subject to her consent, will be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of 12 months from this date under section 92(1)(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld); (c) A conviction be recorded. 6. No order as to costs.
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant pleaded guilty on 13 January 2010 to one count of common assault committed on 15 November 2009 in a railway carriage in the presence of an elderly woman – where the complainant suffered unspecified injuries as a result of the assault – where the appellant was sentenced to 3 months imprisonment at the end of which she was released on 12 months probation – where the appellant was also ordered to pay $500 compensation to the complainant within 6 months, in default 10 days imprisonment – where the appellant pleaded guilty on the same date for an offence of breach of bail committed on 12 January 2010 and was convicted and not further punished – where the appellant was dealt with on the same date for breach of a probation order on which she had been released on 4 January 2010 for an offence of stealing – where the magistrate revoked the probation order but it was otherwise not clear from his sentencing remarks and the court records whether the appellant had been resentenced for the offence of stealing, and if so, as to how she had been resentenced – where the appeal proceeded on…