R v Bliss - [2015] QCA 53

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Bliss [2015] QCA 53

PARTIES:

R
v
BLISS, Taylor Lee
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 262 of 2014
DC No 269 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

14 April 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 February 2015

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced upon five offences to which he had plead guilty – where the first sentence for breaking and entering premises and stealing was for two years imprisonment – where the four other offences were concurrent and for eight months and fifteen days imprisonment, but cumulative on the first sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 209, s 211
Penalties and Sentences Act 2009 (Qld), s 160B(2)

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited
R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88; [2007] QCA 247, referred to
R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381, cited
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, applied
R v Paton[2011] QCA 34, referred to
R v Smith[2013] QCA 397, applied
R v Weeding[2007] QCA 311, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Jackson J’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal against sentence.
This means the applicant is now eligible to apply for release on parole. He stated below and in this Court that he has no prospect of parole because of his poor history. It is, of course, a matter for the parole board to determine if and when he is released on parole. He is now 40 years old. He has a lengthy criminal history replete with recidivist drug-related offending. The offences with which this application is concerned are in that category. He failed to complete an intensive drug rehabilitation order in 2012. This all suggests he is at high risk of re-offending when released into the community. This was also the view of the psychologist whose 11 page report was tendered on the applicant’s behalf at sentence.[1] This, however, does not mean he is necessarily an unsuitable candidate for parole.
[1]Exhibit 5, p 11, [45].
The sentence judge noted:
“Your daughter is now 11, and from all of 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.

Continue reading R v Bliss

Details

AGLC: R v Bliss [2015] QCA 53
Case: [2015] QCA 53
Decision Date: 14 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Bliss, appealed against his sentence following a conviction on five separate offences to which he had pleaded guilty. The trial judge had sentenced the appellant to two years imprisonment for breaking and entering premises and stealing, with the four other offences being concurrent and for eight months and fifteen days imprisonment, cumulative on the first sentence. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court was required to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether there were grounds for interference with the sentence.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The trial judge had taken into account the appellant's plea of guilty, his criminal history, and the seriousness of the offences. The Court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed, and that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence. The Court further held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a manner consistent with the relevant sentencing principles.

The Court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court held that the trial judge had exercised his discretion in a manner consistent with the relevant sentencing principles, and that there were no grounds for interference with the sentence. The Court held that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The Court further held that the appellant's submission that the sentence was manifestly excessive was without merit.

No orders were made by the Court. The Court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

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 Bliss [2015] QCA 53
PARTIES:	R v BLISS, Taylor Lee (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 262 of 2014 DC No 269 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	14 April 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 February 2015
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Holmes JA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced upon five offences to which he had plead guilty – where the first sentence for breaking and entering premises and stealing was for two years imprisonment – where the four other offences were concurrent and for eight months and fifteen days imprisonment, but cumulative on the first sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 209, s 211 Penalties and Sentences Act 2009 (Qld), s 160B(2) Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88; [2007] QCA 247, referred to R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159; [2006] NSWCCA 381, cited R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, applied R v Paton[2011] QCA 34, referred to R v Smith[2013] QCA 397, applied R v Weeding[2007] QCA 311, applied
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent