R v AAT - [2014] QCA 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v AAT [2014] QCA 41

PARTIES:

R
v
AAT
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 248 of 2013
DC No 719 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 February 2014

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of arson and one count of attempted arson – the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the count of arson and to three years imprisonment in respect of one count of attempted arson – both sentences were suspended after six months – the applicant owned a security business – the applicant burned down a townhouse in the final stages of construction – the company building the townhouse owed the applicant money – the arson was an act of revenge – the applicant had no prior criminal history – the applicant entered a plea of guilty before trial and cooperated extensively with the authorities – whether the sentencing judge erred when applying s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether insufficient weight was given to the extensive nature of the cooperation with the authorities

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 461(1)(a), s 535
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 13 , s 13A

R v FN[2005] QCA 113, distinguished
R v Hanlon[2003] QCA 75, considered
R v Moenoa (1995) 80 A Crim R 255; [1995] QCA 208, distinguished
R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Douglas J.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by Douglas J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

DOUGLAS J: The applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment suspended after six months on one count of arson and to three years’ imprisonment also suspended after six months on a further count of attempted arson.

He deliberately burnt down a townhouse that had been under construction and was at the “lock-up” stage as one of 30 buildings being planned or built on a development site at Deception Bay. The charge of attempted arson related to the builder’s site office. The townhouse that was virtually completely destroyed was less than 80 metres from a large number of other occupied units.

Mr AAT, the applicant, who appeared in person, owned a security business and his co-offenders, Mr B, and…

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 R v AAT

Details

AGLC: R v AAT [2014] QCA 41
Case: [2014] QCA 41
Decision Date: 11 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter pleaded guilty to one count of arson and one count of attempted arson. The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the count of arson and to three years imprisonment for the count of attempted arson. Both sentences were suspended after six months. The applicant appealed the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant owned a security business and burned down a townhouse in the final stages of construction, which was an act of revenge as the company building the townhouse owed the applicant money. The applicant had no prior criminal history and entered a plea of guilty before trial, cooperating extensively with the authorities. The applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred when applying section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and that insufficient weight was given to the extensive nature of the cooperation with the authorities.

The court considered the principles of sentencing under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), which requires the court to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence and the character of the offender. The court noted the seriousness of the offence, which involved the destruction of property and a risk to human life, as well as the motive behind the arson, which was revenge. The court also considered the applicant's cooperation with the authorities, which included providing evidence against others involved in the offence. However, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that insufficient weight was given to the cooperation with the authorities. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the cooperation in assessing the appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the applicant's motive for the offence was revenge, which was a significant aggravating factor. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifest error.

The court refused the application for an appeal against the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principles of sentencing and the circumstances of the case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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:	R v AAT [2014] QCA 41
PARTIES:	R v AAT (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 248 of 2013 DC No 719 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	11 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 February 2014
JUDGES:	Muir and Gotterson JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of arson and one count of attempted arson – the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the count of arson and to three years imprisonment in respect of one count of attempted arson – both sentences were suspended after six months – the applicant owned a security business – the applicant burned down a townhouse in the final stages of construction – the company building the townhouse owed the applicant money – the arson was an act of revenge – the applicant had no prior criminal history – the applicant entered a plea of guilty before trial and cooperated extensively with the authorities – whether the sentencing judge erred when applying s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether insufficient weight was given to the extensive nature of the cooperation with the authorities Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 461(1)(a), s 535 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 13 , s 13A R v FN[2005] QCA 113, distinguished R v Hanlon[2003] QCA 75, considered R v Moenoa (1995) 80 A Crim R 255; [1995] QCA 208, distinguished R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent