[2003] QCA 319
COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
MACKENZIE J
CA No 118 of 2003
THE QUEEN
v.
THOMAS OLIVER DAVIES Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 25/07/2003
ORDER
25072003 T11/MXB8 M/T COA143/2003
1
The APPLICANT conducted his own case
MR R J POINTING (instructed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent
| DAVIES JA: The matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed. | 10 |
-----
20
30
40
50
ORDER
2 60
Details
- AGLC
- R v Davies [2003] QCA 319
- Case
- [2003] QCA 319
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Davies was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, with Davies JA, Williams JA, and Mackenzie J presiding. The applicant, Thomas Oliver Davies, represented himself in the appeal against his conviction and sentence. The dispute centred around the legal validity of the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court.
The central legal issues the Court of Appeal had to determine were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant contended that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and that the sentence was excessive given the circumstances of the case.
The Court of Appeal found that there were no significant errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, and thus the conviction stood. Regarding the sentence, the Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the applicant's background. Ultimately, the Court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive and thus upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court. The Court adjourned the matter to a later date for further proceedings.
The central legal issues the Court of Appeal had to determine were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury and if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant contended that the trial judge's directions to the jury were inadequate and that the sentence was excessive given the circumstances of the case.
The Court of Appeal found that there were no significant errors in the trial judge's directions to the jury, and thus the conviction stood. Regarding the sentence, the Court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offence and the applicant's background. Ultimately, the Court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive and thus upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court. The Court adjourned the matter to a later date for further proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.