R v Ali - [2014] QCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ali [2014] QCA 46

PARTIES:

R
v
ALI, Daniel Farook
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 289 of 2013
DC No 1331 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 March 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 March 2014

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of having committed fraud to the value of $30,000 or more – where the amount involved was $32,184 – where the appellant made an application to withdraw plea of guilty – where the appellant denied that his plea of guilty was entered of his own free will – where there was no sworn evidence to support the application – whether the plea of guilty should be set aside

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of having committed fraud to the value of $30,000 or more – where the amount involved was $32,184 – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after six months with an operational period of two and a half years – where the applicant had no relevant previous criminal history and entered an early plea of guilty – where general deterrence was an important factor – where the sentence imposed was consistent with that advanced by the applicant’s counsel in the court below – whether the applicant should not be regarded as bound by the conduct of his case in the court below – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(1)(b), s 408C(2)(c), s 408C(d), s 568(3)

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered
R v Blackhall-Cain; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2000] QCA 380, cited
R v Jeffree[2010] QCA 47, applied
R v Robinson; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 169, cited
R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, followed

COUNSEL:

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

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Douglas J and the orders he proposes.

MUIR JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Douglas J and with his reasons.

DOUGLAS J: Mr Ali entered a plea of guilty to a charge of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more. He was sentenced on 18…

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 Ali

Details

AGLC: R v Ali [2014] QCA 46
Case: [2014] QCA 46
Decision Date: 14 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, pleaded guilty to a count of fraud involving an amount of $32,184, which exceeded the threshold of $30,000. The primary dispute was whether the plea of guilty should be withdrawn, as the appellant claimed it was not made of his own free will. Additionally, the appellant contested the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the court of appeal.

The court examined two main issues: first, whether the plea of guilty should be set aside due to the appellant's claim that it was not entered freely; second, whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the general principles governing appeals against conviction and sentence. The court noted the absence of sworn evidence to support the appellant's claim regarding the voluntariness of the plea. Regarding the sentence, the court assessed whether it was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offence, the amount involved, and the appellant's early plea of guilty and lack of criminal history.

The court dismissed the appeal against conviction, finding no basis to set aside the plea of guilty as the appellant did not provide any sworn evidence to support his claim. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, concluding that the sentence imposed was consistent with the arguments presented by the appellant's counsel and was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the appellant should not be regarded as bound by the conduct of his case in the lower court.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Ali [2014] QCA 46
PARTIES:	R v ALI, Daniel Farook (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 289 of 2013 DC No 1331 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 March 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 March 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Muir JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of having committed fraud to the value of $30,000 or more – where the amount involved was $32,184 – where the appellant made an application to withdraw plea of guilty – where the appellant denied that his plea of guilty was entered of his own free will – where there was no sworn evidence to support the application – whether the plea of guilty should be set aside CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of having committed fraud to the value of $30,000 or more – where the amount involved was $32,184 – where the applicant was sentenced to a term of two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after six months with an operational period of two and a half years – where the applicant had no relevant previous criminal history and entered an early plea of guilty – where general deterrence was an important factor – where the sentence imposed was consistent with that advanced by the applicant’s counsel in the court below – whether the applicant should not be regarded as bound by the conduct of his case in the court below – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(1)(b), s 408C(2)(c), s 408C(d), s 568(3) Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered R v Blackhall-Cain; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2000] QCA 380, cited R v Jeffree[2010] QCA 47, applied R v Robinson; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2004] QCA 169, cited R v Walsh[2008] QCA 391, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant/ appellant appeared on his own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent