R v. Cameron - [2007] QCA 250

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cameron [2007] QCA 250

PARTIES:

R
v
CAMERON, Tyghe Adam
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 85 of 2007
DC No 383 of 2005
DC No 3622 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 August 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 July 2007

JUDGES:

Williams JA, Jerrard JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND ENQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant admitted to a total of 704 offences against property – where the applicant led a temporary law-abiding life – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Burns[2004] QCA 437; CA No 305 of 2004, 16 November 2004, distinguished
R v Cook [1995] QCA 633; CA No 208 of 1995, 16 November 1995, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304; CA No 210 of 1998, 6 October, 1998, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R MacKenzie for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: On 18 December 2006 the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole on 18 December 2010 after pleading guilty to multiple burglaries and other offences. More detail of the offences in question are set out in the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA

On 16 April 2007 he lodged with the Court an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence. The grounds stated in that application were as follows:

"(i)I originally received advice from my lawyers that I had no grounds of appeal. I have since researched the precedents and believe my sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances.
(ii)I was also informed that I could not appeal after 28 days had elapsed from the sentence. I have only recently been advised I can apply for an extension of time."

No other explanation has been provided by the applicant for the delay in seeking to appeal against the sentence imposed. Given the grounds stated there could be no good reason shown to account for the delay unless it could be demonstrated that the sentence was in fact manifestly excessive when compared to other sentences which the applicant has described as "precedents".

As is demonstrated by the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA, which I have had the advantage of reading, that has not been established. Given the extent of the applicant's offending the sentence imposed was clearly well within the appropriate range.

It therefore follows that the applicant has not shown good reason accounting for the delay and otherwise has…

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. Cameron

Details

AGLC: R v Cameron [2007] QCA 250
Case: [2007] QCA 250
Decision Date: 3 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cameron, sought to appeal against his sentence following his conviction for a total of 704 offences against property. The case was heard in the higher court, which had the authority to review and potentially adjust the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly considering his temporary adherence to a law-abiding lifestyle. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was disproportionately severe given the appellant's brief period of compliance with the law and the overall nature of his criminal conduct.

The court meticulously reviewed the circumstances of the appellant's offences, his criminal history, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. It examined the extensive number of offences and the appellant's lack of sustained remorse. The court also considered the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. The comprehensive nature of the appellant's criminal conduct, his lack of genuine rehabilitation efforts, and the importance of upholding the law justified the severity of the sentence.

Given the findings, the court dismissed the application to reduce the sentence. The reasoning was that the sentence reflected the gravity of the appellant's criminal behaviour and served the interests of justice by adequately deterring future criminal activity. The court maintained that the sentence was within the appropriate range, considering the totality of the appellant's actions and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Cameron [2007] QCA 250
PARTIES:	R v CAMERON, Tyghe Adam (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 85 of 2007 DC No 383 of 2005 DC No 3622 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 August 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	23 July 2007
JUDGES:	Williams JA, Jerrard JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND ENQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant admitted to a total of 704 offences against property – where the applicant led a temporary law-abiding life – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Burns[2004] QCA 437; CA No 305 of 2004, 16 November 2004, distinguished R v Cook [1995] QCA 633; CA No 208 of 1995, 16 November 1995, considered R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304; CA No 210 of 1998, 6 October, 1998, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D R MacKenzie for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent