R v Collins - [2003] QCA 154

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Collins [2003] QCA 154
PARTIES: R
v
COLLINS, Terry Allan James
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 23 of 2003
DC No 424 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED EX 9 April 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 9 April 2003
JUDGES: Williams and Jerrard JJA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court;
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: 1. Application for leave to appeal allowed
2. Appeal allowed
3. Set aside sentences imposed and order that convictions
be recorded on both counts and that the applicant be
ordered to perform 120 hours of community service in
respect of the first conviction, and in respect of the second
matter, order that the applicant be released on probation
for three years with a condition in that probation order
requiring that the applicant make payment of $1000.00 to
the Registrar of the District Court at Townsville on behalf
of the complainant Sue Ann Simpson as restitution, such
restitution to be paid in such time and in such amounts as
directed by an authorised Corrective Services Officer to
the applicant, and in any event in full by three months
from the date of this amended order

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant sentenced to six months imprisonment at age eighteen – where applicant’s criminal history minimal – where applicant had expressed a willingness to make restitution if so ordered – where learned trial judge did not specifically take this willingness into account when sentencing – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Barling [1999] QCA 16; CA No 304 of 1998, 5 February
1999, considered
R v Cramond [1999] QCA 11; CA No 411 of 1998, 4
February 1999, considered
R v Henderson [1993] QCA 336; CA No 198 of 1993, 16
August 1993, distinguished
R v Sharkey [1994] QCA 121; CA No 28 of 1994, 29 March
1994 distinguished

R v Weyers [2001] QCA 311; CA No 52 of 2001, 2 August 10
2001, distinguished
COUNSEL: B G Devereaux for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

JERRARD JA: On the 17th of April 2002 at about 5 a.m. in the

morning, the applicant Terry Collins and another man Travis

Knouth unlawfully took Sue Simpson's Ford Falcon motor car from outside her residence at 13 Cope Street, Mt Louisa in Townsville, and drove it into some bushland near the Mt Low	30
parkway. They bogged it and set fire to it, intending thereby
to destroy any possible fingerprints or other forensic link
between themselves and that car. The two offenders had been celebrating Terry Collins' 18th birthday which happened five days earlier and…

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 Collins

Details

AGLC: R v Collins [2003] QCA 154
Case: [2003] QCA 154
Decision Date: 9/04/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Collins involves a young individual who was sentenced to six months imprisonment at the age of eighteen. The applicant had a minimal criminal history but had expressed a willingness to make restitution if so ordered. The learned trial judge, however, did not specifically take this willingness into account when sentencing the applicant. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's failure to consider the applicant's willingness to make restitution constituted a significant error in the sentencing process.

The court examined the factors that should be taken into account when sentencing an offender, particularly focusing on the circumstances of the offender and their willingness to make restitution. It was noted that the trial judge had failed to explicitly consider the applicant's willingness to make restitution, which was a relevant factor in determining an appropriate sentence. The court held that the failure to take this factor into account was a significant error, as it had the potential to affect the overall fairness and proportionality of the sentence imposed. Consequently, the court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive and warranted reconsideration.

In light of the significant error identified, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal and granted the appeal. The sentences imposed were set aside, and the convictions were ordered to be recorded on both counts. The court ordered the applicant to perform 120 hours of community service in respect of the first conviction and, in respect of the second matter, ordered the applicant to be released on probation for three years. The probation order included a condition requiring the applicant to make payment of $1000 to the Registrar of the District Court at Townsville on behalf of the complainant, Sue Ann Simpson, as restitution. This restitution was to be paid in such time and amounts as directed by an authorised Corrective Services Officer, but in any event, in full by three months from the date of the amended order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal allowed

2. Appeal allowed

3. Set aside sentences imposed and order that convictions

be recorded on both counts and that the applicant be

ordered to perform 120 hours of community service in

respect of the first conviction, and in respect of the second

matter, order that the applicant be released on probation

for three years with a condition in that probation order

requiring that the applicant make payment of $1000.00 to

the Registrar of the District Court at Townsville on behalf

of the complainant Sue Ann Simpson as restitution, such

restitution to be paid in such time and in such amounts as

directed by an authorised Corrective Services Officer to

the applicant, and in any event in full by three months

from the date of this amended order

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.