R v Casiotis - [2006] QCA 85

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Casiotis [2006] QCA 85

PARTIES:

R
v
CASIOTIS, Jonathon James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 53 of 2006
DC No 3514 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Grant leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal

2.    Set aside the sentence imposed on 2 March 2006 and in lieu thereof record a conviction and sentence the applicant to four months imprisonment suspended after the six days served between 2 March and 8 March 2006 with an operational period of one year

3.    Applicant to pay compensation in the sum of $5,913 to the Deputy Sheriff, District Court Brisbane within 12 months for transmission to the complainant, whose name and address have been supplied to the Deputy Sheriff. In default of payment, 3 months imprisonment

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 - where the applicant pleaded guilty to wilful damage of a motor vehicle - where he was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by three years probation - where the applicant was on bail for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice when he committed the wilful damage - where at sentence it was acknowledged that the applicant’s youth, his plea of guilty and the fact he was employed were factors in his favour - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 9(2)(a), s 35, s 182A, s 188

COUNSEL:

R A East for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid (Queensland) for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree that the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against sentence and that the appeal should be allowed.

In sentencing an offender a court must have regard to the principles that a sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and that a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable: s 9(2)(a) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). These principles are especially pertinent where the offender is youthful and does not have a serious criminal history.

The applicant was but 18 years old when he committed this offence. He had some limited criminal history which is set out in Williams JA's reasons. It is certainly an exacerbating feature that he was on bail for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice when he committed the present offence. His criminal history, however, is consistent with immaturity. He is now 19 years…

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 Casiotis

Details

AGLC: R v Casiotis [2006] QCA 85
Case: [2006] QCA 85
Decision Date: 24 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casiotis involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to wilful damage of a motor vehicle. The court sentenced him to four months imprisonment followed by three years probation. The sentencing took place while the applicant was on bail for another offence, attempting to pervert the course of justice. The sentencing judge acknowledged the applicant's youth, his plea of guilty, and his employment as mitigating factors. The applicant subsequently appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The applicant contended that the sentence was disproportionate given the mitigating factors and the nature of the crime. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and assess whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range. The court also had to consider whether the appeal was in the interests of justice and whether the sentence could be reduced without undermining the seriousness of the offence.

The court found that the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The court considered the applicant's age, his guilty plea, and his employment status, which were recognised as mitigating factors. It was noted that the applicant had already served six days of his sentence. The court was satisfied that the appeal was in the interests of justice and that the sentence could be appropriately reduced. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal against the sentence, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of four months imprisonment suspended after the six days already served, with an operational period of one year. The applicant was also required to pay compensation to the victim.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal

2. Set aside the sentence imposed on 2 March 2006 and in lieu thereof record a conviction and sentence the applicant to four months imprisonment suspended after the six days served between 2 March and 8 March 2006 with an operational period of one year

3. Applicant to pay compensation in the sum of $5,913 to the Deputy Sheriff, District Court Brisbane within 12 months for transmission to the complainant, whose name and address have been supplied to the Deputy Sheriff. In default of payment, 3 months imprisonment

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 Casiotis [2006] QCA 85
PARTIES:	R v CASIOTIS, Jonathon James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 53 of 2006 DC No 3514 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 March 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 March 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal 2. Set aside the sentence imposed on 2 March 2006 and in lieu thereof record a conviction and sentence the applicant to four months imprisonment suspended after the six days served between 2 March and 8 March 2006 with an operational period of one year 3. Applicant to pay compensation in the sum of $5,913 to the Deputy Sheriff, District Court Brisbane within 12 months for transmission to the complainant, whose name and address have been supplied to the Deputy Sheriff. In default of payment, 3 months imprisonment
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 - where the applicant pleaded guilty to wilful damage of a motor vehicle - where he was sentenced to four months imprisonment followed by three years probation - where the applicant was on bail for the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice when he committed the wilful damage - where at sentence it was acknowledged that the applicant’s youth, his plea of guilty and the fact he was employed were factors in his favour - whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 4, s 9(2)(a), s 35, s 182A, s 188
COUNSEL:	R A East for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid (Queensland) for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent