R v Chua - [2003] QCA 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
R v Chua [2003] QCA 41

PARTIES:
R
v
CHUA, Karen Thoa
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:
CA No 386 of 2002
DC No 37 of 2002

DIVISION:
Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
14 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane

HEARING DATE:
14 February 2003

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 for appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to be suspended after six months for an operational period of two years in respect of three counts of accessory after the fact to burglary, stealing and unlawful use of a motor vessel – applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended after four months would balance the competing interest of deterrence with the mitigating factors in favour of the applicant - sentence imposed was within the range appropriate to the circumstances of the offences, taking into account the applicant’s circumstances – sentence imposed not manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:
N V Weston for the applicant
R G Martin for the respondent

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

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice Mullins to give her reasons

first.

MULLINS J: The applicant applies for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on her on 21 October 2002 in respect of three counts of accessory after the fact to burglary, stealing and unlawful use of a motor vessel.

On each count the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to be suspended after six months for an operational period of two years.

The principal offender, Sokolowski, was the de facto partner of the applicant. In November 1999 he burgled and stole valuable items from the residence of the complainant, including a 48-foot cruiser. The applicant had no knowledge that Sokolowski intended to commit these offences.

The stolen items which were never recovered were valued at between two and $3 million dollars. Sokolowski worked for the complainant and had a key to the residence where the offences occurred. As a result the complainants were not covered by insurance except for the boat and received only some $200,000.00 from the insurers.

After these offences there was a vast and expensive international search for the missing property and for Sokolowski. Eventually Sokolowski secretly returned home on
5 December 1999 from which point the applicant's role as an accessory commenced.

There was an elaborate process by which using false names Sokolowski, with the applicant's assistance, went by bus to Cairns and communication between the two of them was able to continue.

Sokolowski returned to the applicant on 8 April 2000 and was with…

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 Chua

Details

AGLC: R v Chua [2003] QCA 41
Case: [2003] QCA 41
Decision Date: 14 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Chua, the applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months, suspended after six months for an operational period of two years, in respect of three counts of accessory after the fact to burglary, stealing, and unlawful use of a motor vessel. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, contending that a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended after four months would better balance the competing interests of deterrence with the mitigating factors in his favour.

The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly excessive. This involved examining the sentence imposed in light of the seriousness of the offending, the need for deterrence, and the applicant's personal circumstances. The court considered the sentencing principles and the appropriate range of sentence for the offences committed. It was necessary to assess whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was within the range appropriate to the circumstances of the offences, taking into account the applicant's personal circumstances.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range appropriate to the circumstances of the offences, taking into account the applicant’s circumstances. The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for 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 Chua [2003] QCA 41
PARTIES:	R v CHUA, Karen Thoa (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 386 of 2002 DC No 37 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	14 February 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 February 2003
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 for appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – applicant sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months to be suspended after six months for an operational period of two years in respect of three counts of accessory after the fact to burglary, stealing and unlawful use of a motor vessel – applicant applied for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether a sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment suspended after four months would balance the competing interest of deterrence with the mitigating factors in favour of the applicant - sentence imposed was within the range appropriate to the circumstances of the offences, taking into account the applicant’s circumstances – sentence imposed not manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	N V Weston for the applicant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent