R v Alt

Case [2013] QCA 343

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Alt [2013] QCA 343

PARTIES:

R
v
ALT, Stephen Wayne
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 137 of 2013
DC No 433 of 2012
DC No 432 of 2012
DC No 370 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

15 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2013

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Morrison JJA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.1.   

The confidential reasons for judgment of Morrison JA handed down to the parties today and marked “A” be not further published, a copy thereof be placed in a sealed envelope, and that envelope be opened only by order of the Court or upon an application under s 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).2.   

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to 14 counts, under three indictments, of dishonesty and property related offences committed over a three year period – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at 30 per cent – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence – where the applicant contends the learned sentencing judge erred in the regard given to the time that has elapsed (and rehabilitation) since the commission of the offences – where there was a delay of nine years from the last offence to sentence – where the delay was caused by the applicant pursuing lawful avenues (for example, assisting police) and failing to appear in court – where the applicant gained lawful employment and ceased all criminal activity during the delay – whether the learned sentencing judge erred in taking the applicant’s rehabilitation into account, but discounting it where it was the product of delay caused by the applicant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence – where the applicant contends the learned sentencing judge erred in her application of sections 9, 13 and 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where the applicant provided assistance (PSA, s 9), pleaded guilty (PSA, s 13) and provided an undertaking to cooperate (PSA, s 13A) – whether the learned sentencing judge confused the separate reductions required where there has been both presentence cooperation with a s 13A undertaking

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence – where the applicant contends the learned sentencing judge erred in failing to give regard to the applicant’s willingness to make full…

Continue reading R v Alt

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Alt [2013] QCA 343
Case
[2013] QCA 343
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Alt, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the learned sentencing judge had erred in several respects. The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to 14 counts of dishonesty and property-related offences committed over a three-year period and was sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at 30 per cent. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had erred in considering the time elapsed since the commission of the offences and the applicant's rehabilitation, which was partly due to a delay of nine years caused by the applicant himself. The applicant also contended that the sentencing judge had misapplied sections 9, 13, and 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), failed to consider the applicant's willingness to make full restitution or pay compensation, did not adequately explain the cumulative sentences, and that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant and the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant legislation. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the factors relevant to sentencing and had not erred in her application of the law. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly taken into account the applicant's rehabilitation and the delay in sentencing, and that there was no error in the application of sections 9, 13, and 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court also found that the sentencing judge had adequately explained the cumulative sentences and that there was no error in the sentencing decision. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no misapplication of principle.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The confidential reasons for judgment of Morrison JA were not to be further published, and a copy of the reasons were to be placed in a sealed envelope and opened only by order of the Court or upon an application under section 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.1.

The confidential reasons for judgment of Morrison JA handed down to the parties today and marked “A” be not further published, a copy thereof be placed in a sealed envelope, and that envelope be opened only by order of the Court or upon an application under s 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).2.

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.