R v Casey - [2003] QCA 152

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Casey [2003] QCA 152
PARTIES: R
v
CASEY, Joel Peter
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 34 of 2003
DC No 482 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON: 3 April 2003
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 April 2003
JUDGES: McPherson JA and Fryberg and Muir JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Application dismissed
A warrant issue for the arrest of the applicant
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – where applicant convicted on own plea of two
counts of armed robbery in company – where sentenced on
each count to 3 years’ imprisonment to be suspended after
serving 4 months with an operational period of 3 years and
sentences to be served concurrently – where the applicant
seeks leave to appeal against the sentences – whether the
sentences imposed were manifestly excessive
Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9
R v Del Arco [1994] QCA 70; CA No 289 of 1993, 25 March
1994, considered
R v Cross CA No 90 of 1991, considered
R v Groves [1995] QCA 248, CA No 113 of 1995, 27 April
1995, considered

R v Hanrahan, Schneider & Taylor [1992] QCA 477; CA
309 of 1992, 1 December 1992, considered
R v Melano, ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [1995]
2 Qd R 186, considered
R v Moss [1999] QCA 426; CA No 270 of 1999, 8 October
1999, considered
R v Taylor & Napatali; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 323;
CA 157 and 158 of 1999, 20 August 1999, considered
COUNSEL: A W Moynihan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MUIR J: The applicant was convicted in the District Court on 10 October 2002 on his own plea of two counts of armed robbery in company. He was sentenced on each count to three years' imprisonment suspended after four months with an operational period of three years.

The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly excessive.

The applicant's mother, a co-accused, was also convicted on her own plea and sentenced on 10 October. Sentences of three years to be served concurrently were also imposed on her but in her case the sentences are to be suspended after six months. She was also given concurrent sentences for fraud and stealing. Two other co-offenders, Maudsley and Burns, participated in the offences and were sentenced in the District Court in Townsville on 8 November 2002.

Maudsley, who was 17 years of age at the time of the offences, was sentenced to three years' imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three years. Burns, aged 18 years at the time…

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 Casey

Details

AGLC: R v Casey [2003] QCA 152
Case: [2003] QCA 152
Decision Date: 3/04/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casey involved the applicant who was convicted on his own plea of two counts of armed robbery in company. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment and the court was tasked with reviewing the sentence. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the circumstances of the crime and the applicant's plea of guilty. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the mandatory minimum sentencing laws applicable to the offences of armed robbery.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the need to consider the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the principles of deterrence and denunciation. The court also took into account the applicant's plea of guilty, which was a mitigating factor. However, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The gravity of the armed robberies, the use of a firearm, and the impact on the victims were significant factors that justified the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate, and did not constitute a miscarriage of justice.

Consequently, the court dismissed the application for a review of sentence. Furthermore, the court issued a warrant for the arrest of the applicant, enforcing the original sentence. The court's decision upheld the principle that the sentencing process must balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the circumstances of each individual case.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

A warrant issue for the arrest of the applicant

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.