R v Alexander aka Fairfax - [2006] QCA 17

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Alexander aka Fairfax [2006] QCA 17

PARTIES:

R
v
ALEXANDER, Jordan Dale
aka FAIRFAX, Jordan James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 8 of 2006
DC No 3666 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

9 February 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES - where applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, three counts of uttering counterfeit money, one count of possessing counterfeit money and three counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception – where applicant was also dealt with for committing an offence during a suspended sentence – where applicant was sentenced on each count to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years to be served concurrently – where unserved balance of applicant’s partially suspended sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment was activated, to be served concurrently with the six year sentence – where applicant had an extensive criminal history under many aliases - where applicant claims that sentence was manifestly excessive – where applicant claims that sentence did not take into account his plea of guilty and eight months served in custody prior to sentence – whether sentencing judge should have awarded a non-parole period of two to two and a half years to reflect applicant’s eight months served in pre-sentence custody

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161

R v Alexander [2004] QCA 11; CA No 331 of 2003, 13 February 2004, distinguished
R v McMillan [1999] QCA 287; CA No 54 of 1999, 27 July 1999, distinguished

R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97, not followed

COUNSEL:

B J Butler SC for the applicant
P G Huygens for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane on 22 December 2005 to seven counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception, three counts of uttering counterfeit money, one count of possessing counterfeit money and three counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. He was also dealt with for committing an offence during the operational period of a suspended sentence. On each count to which he pleaded guilty he was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The unserved balance of the partially suspended sentence imposed on 15 March 2002 of two and a half years imprisonment was activated in full with the…

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 R v Alexander aka Fairfax 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: [2006] QCA 17
Decision Date: 9 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal by Alexander, also known as Fairfax, against his sentence was heard in the relevant Australian court. The appellant had pleaded guilty to a series of offences including attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, uttering counterfeit money, possessing counterfeit money, and obtaining financial advantage by deception. In addition, the appellant was dealt with for committing an offence while on a suspended sentence. The appellant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for each offence, with a non-parole period of three years, to be served concurrently. The unserved balance of a partially suspended sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment was also activated, to be served concurrently with the six-year sentence. The appellant, with an extensive criminal history under many aliases, argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge should have taken into account his plea of guilty and the eight months he had already served in custody prior to sentencing. Specifically, the appellant contended that the non-parole period should have been two to two and a half years to reflect his pre-sentence custody.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge should have taken into account the appellant's plea of guilty and the time already served in custody. The court considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, the nature and seriousness of the offences, and the principles of sentencing. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's plea of guilty and the time already served in custody. The court determined that the non-parole period was correctly set at three years, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant's extensive criminal history, the nature and seriousness of the offences, and the principles of sentencing were taken into account in imposing the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's plea of guilty and the time already served in custody. The court concluded that the non-parole period was correctly set at three years, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Alexander aka Fairfax [2006] QCA 17
PARTIES:	R v ALEXANDER, Jordan Dale aka FAIRFAX, Jordan James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 8 of 2006 DC No 3666 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	9 February 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES - where applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, three counts of uttering counterfeit money, one count of possessing counterfeit money and three counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception – where applicant was also dealt with for committing an offence during a suspended sentence – where applicant was sentenced on each count to six years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years to be served concurrently – where unserved balance of applicant’s partially suspended sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment was activated, to be served concurrently with the six year sentence – where applicant had an extensive criminal history under many aliases - where applicant claims that sentence was manifestly excessive – where applicant claims that sentence did not take into account his plea of guilty and eight months served in custody prior to sentence – whether sentencing judge should have awarded a non-parole period of two to two and a half years to reflect applicant’s eight months served in pre-sentence custody Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161 R v Alexander [2004] QCA 11; CA No 331 of 2003, 13 February 2004, distinguished R v McMillan [1999] QCA 287; CA No 54 of 1999, 27 July 1999, distinguished R v Skedgwell [1999] 2 Qd R 97, not followed
COUNSEL:	B J Butler SC for the applicant P G Huygens for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent