R v. Chatters - [2008] QCA 233

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chatters [2008] QCA 233

PARTIES:

R
v
CHATTERS, Heath Lance
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 71 of 2008
DC No 2943 of 2005
DC No 957 of 2007
DC No 3522 of 2007
DC No 464 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 July 2008

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of: one count of unlawful use of a vehicle, once count of dangerous operation of a vehicle, and a summary offence of obstructing police – where the applicant committed the offences while serving a partially suspended sentence imposed for a serious robbery offence – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on each of the indictable offences and six months imprisonment for the summary offence to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the remaining term of three years of the partially suspended sentence which the sentencing judge activated – where the applicant committed the offences on the day the applicant was released from prison – where the applicant was a chronic alcoholic – where the applicant had previously been sentenced to about 65 separate terms of imprisonment and had been convicted of some 36 offences involving a motor vehicle – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Theuerkauf & Theuerkauf; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 94, referred to
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

KEANE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment prepared by Fraser JA. For those reasons I agree that the application should be refused.

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of Fraser JA and with the order he proposes.

FRASER JA: The applicant, who seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on 27 February 2008, was convicted on his plea of guilty of: one count of unlawful use of a vehicle, one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle, and a summary offence of obstructing police. The applicant committed those offences on 19 February 2007 whilst he was serving a partially suspended sentence imposed on 6 June 2006 for a serious robbery offence. For that offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years, suspended after serving two years.

The applicant was sentenced…

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. Chatters

Details

AGLC: R v Chatters [2008] QCA 233
Case: [2008] QCA 233
Decision Date: 8 August 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Chatters, the respondent was convicted on his plea of guilty of one count of unlawful use of a vehicle, one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle, and a summary offence of obstructing police. The respondent committed the offences while serving a partially suspended sentence for a serious robbery offence. The court sentenced the respondent to 18 months imprisonment for each of the indictable offences, and six months imprisonment for the summary offence. These sentences were to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the remaining term of three years of the partially suspended sentence which the sentencing judge activated. The respondent committed the offences on the day he was released from prison, and he was a chronic alcoholic with a history of 65 separate terms of imprisonment and 36 convictions involving a motor vehicle. The respondent appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court considered the appeal and concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the respondent's criminal history and the circumstances of the offence warranted a significant penalty, and the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances. The court also noted that the respondent's alcoholism and other personal circumstances did not warrant a reduction in sentence. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.

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 Chatters [2008] QCA 233
PARTIES:	R v CHATTERS, Heath Lance (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 71 of 2008 DC No 2943 of 2005 DC No 957 of 2007 DC No 3522 of 2007 DC No 464 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 July 2008
JUDGES:	Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA 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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of: one count of unlawful use of a vehicle, once count of dangerous operation of a vehicle, and a summary offence of obstructing police – where the applicant committed the offences while serving a partially suspended sentence imposed for a serious robbery offence – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on each of the indictable offences and six months imprisonment for the summary offence to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the remaining term of three years of the partially suspended sentence which the sentencing judge activated – where the applicant committed the offences on the day the applicant was released from prison – where the applicant was a chronic alcoholic – where the applicant had previously been sentenced to about 65 separate terms of imprisonment and had been convicted of some 36 offences involving a motor vehicle – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Theuerkauf & Theuerkauf; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2003] QCA 94, referred to Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.