R v Anderson - [2006] QCA 563

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Anderson [2006] QCA 563

PARTIES:

R
v
ANDERSON, Angus
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 152 of 2006
DC No 3573 of 2005
DC No 2656 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 December 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
2.    Appeal allowed
3.    Sentence imposed on 27 April 2006 for the offences alleged in indictment no. 3573 of 2005 be set aside and the following sentences substituted:
      (a)     on each of counts 1 and 12 imprisonment for                   three months
      (b)     on each of counts 2, 3 and 4 imprisonment for                six months
      (c)     on each of counts 5, 7, 9, 10 and 13   imprisonment for twelve months
      (d)     on count 6 imprisonment for fifteen months
      (e)     on each of counts 8 and 11 imprisonment   for eighteen months
4.    Direct that the imprisonment for those offences start from the end of the period of the suspended imprisonment the applicant was ordered to serve on 27 April 2006. The applicant’s parole release date for the substituted sentences be set at 29 April 2007
5.    From 14 April 2003 to 19 August 2003 and from 3 May 2005 to 27 April 2006 a total of 488 days, the applicant was held in pre-sentence custody. Declare that no part of the period of 488 days is taken to be time already served under the substituted sentences
6.    Confirm the order made on 27 April 2006 that the applicant serve twelve months of the suspended imprisonment the subject of orders made on 29 September 2000

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – Applications to reduce sentence – When granted - Generally – whether sentences imposed manifestly excessive – offences of dishonesty – where single sentence of imprisonment for all counts imposed – power to impose single sentence of imprisonment for multiple counts – pre-sentence custody declaration – where court omitted to make such a declaration

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 144, s 147, s 155,
s 157, s 161, s 213

R v Crofts [1999] 1 Qd R 386, followed
R v Grant-Watson [2004] QCA 77; CA No 360 of 2003, 16 March 2004, considered
R v Rees [2002] QCA 469; CA 237 of 2002, 4 November 2002, cited
R v Ruddell [2005] QCA 346; CA 117 of 2005, 23 September 2005, [2006] 1 Qd R 361, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: I agree with Helman J.

HELMAN…

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 Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2006] QCA 563
Case: [2006] QCA 563
Decision Date: 22 December 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Anderson, was convicted on thirteen counts of dishonesty and sentenced to a single term of imprisonment. The court omitted to make a declaration regarding the pre-sentence custody that Anderson had already served. Anderson appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the court had the power to impose a single sentence for multiple counts of dishonesty. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the omission of a declaration regarding pre-sentence custody affected the appeal.

The High Court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court emphasised the need for a fair and balanced approach when sentencing multiple counts of dishonesty. The court noted that while it had the power to impose a single sentence for multiple counts, it should ensure the sentence reflects the totality of the offences. The omission of a declaration regarding pre-sentence custody did not affect the appeal, as it did not alter the substantive sentence imposed. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the original sentence and substituting new sentences for each count. The new sentences were designed to reflect the seriousness of the offences while considering the time already served by Anderson.

The court's decision underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for judicial oversight to prevent manifestly excessive sentences. By setting aside the original sentence and substituting new ones, the court ensured that the punishment aligned more closely with the gravity of the offences. The court also confirmed that the period of pre-sentence custody should not be counted as time already served under the new sentences, reflecting a fair interpretation of the sentencing process. The final orders included setting new sentences for each count, specifying the start date for imprisonment, and clarifying the period of pre-sentence custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Sentence imposed on 27 April 2006 for the offences alleged in indictment no. 3573 of 2005 be set aside and the following sentences substituted:

(a) on each of counts 1 and 12 imprisonment for three months

(b) on each of counts 2, 3 and 4 imprisonment for six months

(d) on count 6 imprisonment for fifteen months

(e) on each of counts 8 and 11 imprisonment for eighteen months

4. Direct that the imprisonment for those offences start from the end of the period of the suspended imprisonment the applicant was ordered to serve on 27 April 2006. The applicant’s parole release date for the substituted sentences be set at 29 April 2007

5. From 14 April 2003 to 19 August 2003 and from 3 May 2005 to 27 April 2006 a total of 488 days, the applicant was held in pre-sentence custody. Declare that no part of the period of 488 days is taken to be time already served under the substituted sentences

6. Confirm the order made on 27 April 2006 that the applicant serve twelve months of the suspended imprisonment the subject of orders made on 29 September 2000

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 Anderson [2006] QCA 563
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Angus (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 152 of 2006 DC No 3573 of 2005 DC No 2656 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 December 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 December 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal allowed 3. Sentence imposed on 27 April 2006 for the offences alleged in indictment no. 3573 of 2005 be set aside and the following sentences substituted: (a) on each of counts 1 and 12 imprisonment for three months (b) on each of counts 2, 3 and 4 imprisonment for six months (c) on each of counts 5, 7, 9, 10 and 13 imprisonment for twelve months (d) on count 6 imprisonment for fifteen months (e) on each of counts 8 and 11 imprisonment for eighteen months 4. Direct that the imprisonment for those offences start from the end of the period of the suspended imprisonment the applicant was ordered to serve on 27 April 2006. The applicant’s parole release date for the substituted sentences be set at 29 April 2007 5. From 14 April 2003 to 19 August 2003 and from 3 May 2005 to 27 April 2006 a total of 488 days, the applicant was held in pre-sentence custody. Declare that no part of the period of 488 days is taken to be time already served under the substituted sentences 6. Confirm the order made on 27 April 2006 that the applicant serve twelve months of the suspended imprisonment the subject of orders made on 29 September 2000
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – Applications to reduce sentence – When granted - Generally – whether sentences imposed manifestly excessive – offences of dishonesty – where single sentence of imprisonment for all counts imposed – power to impose single sentence of imprisonment for multiple counts – pre-sentence custody declaration – where court omitted to make such a declaration Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 144, s 147, s 155, s 157, s 161, s 213 R v Crofts [1999] 1 Qd R 386, followed R v Grant-Watson [2004] QCA 77; CA No 360 of 2003, 16 March 2004, considered R v Rees [2002] QCA 469; CA 237 of 2002, 4 November 2002, cited R v Ruddell [2005] QCA 346; CA 117 of 2005, 23 September 2005, [2006] 1 Qd R 361, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent