R v Ankers - [2003] QCA 211

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Ankers [2003] QCA 211
PARTIES: R
v
ANKERS, Peer Audie
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 425 of 2002 DC No 565 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING District Court at Southport
COURT:
DELIVERED EX 23 May 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 23 May 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Williams JA and White 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 – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO
ACCOUNT – MISCELLANOUS MATTERS – where
applicant convicted and sentenced to a head sentence of 10
years imprisonment for property and serious violent offences
– whether counsel represented the applicant adequately at
sentence – whether prosecution fabricated facts at the time of
sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238; CA No 46 of 2001, 22 June
2001, considered
R v Senior [2002] QCA 104; CA No 334 of 2001, 20 March
2002, considered
COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court of Southport to three counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, four counts of armed robbery in company and one count of wilful damage. On 27 November 2002 the applicant was sentenced to an overall sentence of 10 years' imprisonment. The sentence was reopened on 16 January 2003 to allow the learned primary Judge to impose individual sentences on each count. Her Honour re-sentenced the applicant to 10 years' imprisonment in respect of the armed robbery offences and to lesser terms of imprisonment in respect of each of the four remaining offences and declared 266 days spent in custody to be time already served under the sentence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the following grounds. First, he contends his legal representatives did not follow his written instructions during sentencing. Second, he says he pleaded guilty by ex officio indictment on the understanding that the prosecution would present facts in a certain way and they reneged on this just before the sentencing commenced. Third, he contends the prosecution lied about some facts in the sentencing process which he could have shown to be lies, given time, and that the Judge was led to believe the offences were worse than they actually were. Fourth, he contends that his barrister did not represent him and put forward the mitigating factors to the best of his ability. The facts put forward at sentence are as follows. The applicant was involved in the unlawful use of a motor vehicle taken from a Surfers Paradise street for use in the robbery of the ANZ Bank at Nerang the next…

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 Ankers

Details

AGLC: R v Ankers [2003] QCA 211
Case: [2003] QCA 211
Decision Date: 23/05/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ankers, the defendant was convicted of a serious criminal offence and subsequently sentenced by the court. The nature of the dispute involved the defendant challenging the severity of the sentence imposed upon him. The matter was brought before the court for consideration of whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the defendant should be granted leave to appeal against it.

The legal issues before the court included the consideration of various factors that should be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence for the offence committed. This involved examining the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, any mitigating or aggravating circumstances, and any other relevant matters. The court was also required to consider whether the sentence imposed was excessive or disproportionate in light of these factors.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the various factors relevant to the sentencing process. It was noted that the offence committed was of a serious nature, and the defendant had a prior criminal history. The court also took into account any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that were presented. After carefully weighing all of these factors, the court determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not constitute an error of law or a manifestly unjust result. Accordingly, the court refused the defendant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

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 Ankers [2003] QCA 211
PARTIES:	R v ANKERS, Peer Audie (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 425 of 2002 DC No 565 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING	District Court at Southport
COURT:
DELIVERED EX	23 May 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 May 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and White 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 – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANOUS MATTERS – where applicant convicted and sentenced to a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment for property and serious violent offences – whether counsel represented the applicant adequately at sentence – whether prosecution fabricated facts at the time of sentence – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238; CA No 46 of 2001, 22 June 2001, considered R v Senior [2002] QCA 104; CA No 334 of 2001, 20 March 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent