R v Cifuentes

Case [2006] QCA 566


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cifuentes [2006] QCA 566

PARTIES:

R
v
CIFUENTES, Michael Angel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 281 of 2006
DC No 478 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

22 December 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Holmes JJA and Helman J
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 – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of demanding property with threats – applicant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment – applicant was a police officer – applicant threatened that complainant’s children would be removed and his assets confiscated – applicant denied guilt until he had seen the strong evidence against him – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 415

R v Amery [1999] QCA 236; CA No 119 of 1999, 18 June 1999, considered

R v Campbell [1997] QCA 127; CA No 379 of 1996, 16 May 1997, considered

R v Coleman [1995] QCA 549; CA Nos 343 of 1995, 344 of 1995, 2 October 1995, considered

R v Drinkwater [2006] QCA 82; CA No 216 of 2005, 22 March 2006, considered

R v Gardiner (unreported, Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal, CA No 159 of 1981, 16 September 1981), considered

R v Gardner [1997] QCA 292; CA No 248 of 1997, 7 August 1997, considered

R v Johnson and Edwards [1981] Qd R 440, considered

R v K J Johnson (unreported, Queensland Court of Criminal Appeal, CA No 317 of 1981, 3 March 1982), considered

R v Marriner [2006] QCA 32; CA No 191 of 2005, 17 February 2006, considered

R v Renwick (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, CA No 244 of 1991, 14 November 1991), considered

R v Shambrook [1997] QCA 356; CA No 359 of 1996, 21 October 1997, considered

R v Smith [1997] QCA 109; CA No 566 of 1996, 9 May 1997, considered

R v Stokes (unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, CA No 179 of 1993, 22 November 1993), considered

R v Stratton [1992] QCA 102, considered

COUNSEL:

T J Kimmins for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Mellick Smith & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. JERRARD JA: On 5 September 2006 Michael Cifuentes pleaded guilty in the Cairns District Court to two counts of demanding property with threats, contrary to s 415 of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), and was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment. The learned sentencing judge did…

Continue reading R v Cifuentes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Cifuentes [2006] QCA 566
Case
[2006] QCA 566
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cifuentes involved a former police officer who had pleaded guilty to two counts of demanding property with threats. The applicant had threatened that the complainant's children would be removed and his assets confiscated. The applicant denied his guilt until he had seen the strong evidence against him. The court sentenced him to three and a half years imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court was required to decide whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the applicant was entitled to a reduction in sentence.

The court considered the relevant principles of sentencing and examined the particular circumstances of the case. It found that the applicant's position as a police officer was a significant aggravating factor, as was the fact that he had abused his position of authority to commit the offences. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant was not entitled to a reduction in sentence.

The applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances and that there were no grounds for interference. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the justice system and the need to deter police officers from abusing their position of authority. The court also noted that the applicant had shown no remorse for his conduct and had denied his guilt until he had seen the evidence against him.

No orders were made. The applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

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.