R v Conway

Case [2012] QCA 142


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Conway [2012] QCA 142

PARTIES:

R
v
CONWAY, Kelly John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 53 of 2012
DC No 103 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

28 May 2012

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.  The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2.  The appeal is allowed.

3.  The sentences imposed at first instance are set aside and instead on each count the applicant is sentenced to six years imprisonment and is eligible for parole on 5 March 2014.

4.  The applicant is declared to have served a pre-sentence custody period of 87 days between 5 March 2012 and 1 June 2012, as imprisonment already served under the sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of rape on the morning of trial – where offences occurred in the house of the complainant – where the applicant knew the complainant was alone at her residence – where the complainant originally permitted applicant to enter – where the applicant had no prior criminal history and generally good antecedents – whether the sentencing judge erred by characterising the late pleas of guilty as reflecting less than a willingness to cooperate in the administration of justice – whether the sentencing judge erred in considering the offences to be aggravated by their occurrence in the complainant’s residence and by the applicant’s breach of trust – whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding the appropriate range was between seven and nine years – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(2)

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
R v Basacar [2006] QCA 352, cited
R v Cox [2011] QCA 277, cited
R v D [1996] 1 Qd R 363; [1995] QCA 329, cited
R v Elzinga; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1998] QCA 128, cited
R v Q [2003] QCA 421, cited
R v Stephens; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, cited
R v Stirling [1996] QCA 342, cited

COUNSEL:

J A Greggery for the applicant
J Phillips for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Telford Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P:  The application for leave to appeal should be granted and the appeal allowed.  Sentences of six years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years should be substituted.  I agree with the reasons and proposed orders of Henry J.

  1. MUIR JA: I agree that the application should be granted and the appeal allowed…

Continue reading R v Conway

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Conway [2012] QCA 142
Case
[2012] QCA 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Conway, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed by the trial judge following his guilty pleas to two counts of rape. The trial judge sentenced the applicant to seven years imprisonment on each count, with the sentences to run concurrently, and ordered that the applicant would not be eligible for parole until 2016. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the trial judge erred in various respects in assessing the appropriate sentence. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had erred in characterising the applicant's late pleas of guilty, in considering the offences to be aggravated by their occurrence in the complainant’s residence and by the applicant’s breach of trust, and in concluding that the appropriate sentence range was between seven and nine years. The applicant also contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the trial judge had erred in characterising the applicant's late pleas of guilty, as the applicant had shown a willingness to cooperate in the administration of justice. The court also held that the sentencing judge had erred in considering the offences to be aggravated by their occurrence in the complainant’s residence and by the applicant’s breach of trust. The court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the applicant's good antecedents and the absence of any prior criminal history. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account all the circumstances of the case.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the sentences imposed by the trial judge, and sentenced the applicant to six years imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently, with parole eligibility starting on 5 March 2014. The applicant was declared to have served a pre-sentence custody period of 87 days between 5 March 2012 and 1 June 2012, as imprisonment already served under the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed.

3. The sentences imposed at first instance are set aside and instead on each count the applicant is sentenced to six years imprisonment and is eligible for parole on 5 March 2014.

4. The applicant is declared to have served a pre-sentence custody period of 87 days between 5 March 2012 and 1 June 2012, as imprisonment already served under the sentence.

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.