R v Coombes - [2003] QCA 388

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Coombes [2003] QCA 388
PARTIES: R
v
COOMBES, Briony June
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 148 of 2003
DC No 11 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for leave to appeal against sentence
Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Innisfail
DELIVERED EX 3 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 September 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Dutney J and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court,
each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Where appellant convicted of one count of attempted fraud and one count of perjury – where appellant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and 2 ½ years imprisonment respectively, to be served concurrently and suspended after 10 months with an operational period of 4 years – whether sentence manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – whether evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on her own behalf
C Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J: The appellant was found guilty after trial of one count of attempted fraud in respect of which she was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, and one count of perjury in respect of which she was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment. The sentences were imposed concurrently to be suspended after 10 months for an operational period of four years.

The appellant appeals against her conviction and also seeks leave to appeal against sentence. The circumstances of the offences are as follows. On 25 September 2000 the appellant

complained to police that her house had been broken into and Drive, Belvedere, Innisfail and were told that about $85 in loose change had been taken from a container, and that a cigarette lighter and a packet of cigarettes had also been stolen.

that a number of items had been stolen. Police officers

The police noticed a kitchen window that was ajar and that may and charged in relation to a number of similar break-ins that had occurred in the general area of the appellant's house. He was interviewed by police officers Thiry and McCallum, and admitted that he was responsible for the break-in at the appellant's house. Davis admitted to breaking into the appellant's house and stealing the items, being the $85 in change, the cigarette lighter and the packet of cigarettes.

have served as a point of entry. Near the kitchen window on
the kitchen bench the police noticed four gold rings which
were clearly visible, and mentioned to the appellant that she
was lucky that the rings had not also been taken. She agreed,
according to their evidence, and said that they were valued at
about $4,000. Officer Steele completed a Criminal Offence

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 Coombes

Details

AGLC: R v Coombes [2003] QCA 388
Case: [2003] QCA 388
Decision Date: 3/09/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Coombes, the appellant was convicted of one count of attempted fraud and one count of perjury. The appeal was against the conviction and the sentence imposed by the court. The conviction and sentence were the subject of a review by the court to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the court of appeal, which reviewed the evidence and legal principles to arrive at its decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial court was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was proportionate to the offence committed and whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors that should be taken into account. The court reviewed the evidence presented at the trial and the submissions made by both parties to determine whether the sentence was appropriate.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the trial court was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had a criminal history and had committed serious offences. The court also noted that the offences committed were serious and had caused significant harm to the victims. The court found that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence committed and took into account the appellant's criminal history and the principles of sentencing. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and found that there were no grounds for the appeal against the sentence.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction and refused leave to appeal against the sentence. The court found that the evidence presented at the trial was sufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court noted that the appellant had a criminal history and had committed serious offences, and that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the offence committed. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive and found that there were no grounds for the appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed.

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 Coombes [2003] QCA 388
PARTIES:	R v COOMBES, Briony June (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 148 of 2003 DC No 11 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence Appeal against conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Innisfail
DELIVERED EX	3 September 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 September 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Dutney J and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – Where appellant convicted of one count of attempted fraud and one count of perjury – where appellant sentenced to 18 months imprisonment and 2 ½ years imprisonment respectively, to be served concurrently and suspended after 10 months with an operational period of 4 years – whether sentence manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENCE – MATTERS RELATING TO PROOF – whether evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf C Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent