R v Davies - [2002] QCA 29

[2002] QCA 29

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
WILLIAMS JA
DOUGLAS J

CA No 130 of 2001

THE QUEEN

SCOTT WILLIAM DAVIES Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/02/2002

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three offences committed at Townsville on 22 November 1998: entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, common assault and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

The offences were committed in the following circumstances. The applicant and another man referred to only by the Christian name James went together to the home of one Michael Lafferty. Lafferty owed the applicant approximately $2000. The applicant's purpose was to obtain payment.
Lafferty was not home. His de facto wife Ms Pery was present. Ms Pery told the applicant that he should come back later. The applicant knew that Lafferty owned a motor cycle. He told Ms Pery in substance that he was intending to take the cycle as security for payment of the debt.

Against Ms Pery's protests, the applicant, together with the person James, removed the cycle from the garage. There was a scuffle in which the applicant assaulted Ms Pery. The person James alone then drove the cycle from the premises. The applicant did not see it again. It was located in badly damaged condition in bushland the following month.

According to information put before the learned sentencing Judge, Lafferty purchased the cycle in wrecked condition in 1997, paying $2500 for it. He spent approximately $4500 repairing it. The retail market value in late 1998 of such a cycle, being a 1994 X600 Honda Enduro, was approximately $5000. After recovering the wrecked cycle, Lafferty sold it for $1500.

The learned Judge ordered under section 35 subsection 1 paragraph c of the Penalties & Sentences Act that the applicant pay $3500 compensation to Lafferty within 18 months. The application for leave to appeal against sentence relates only to that order. The Judge calculated the amount of $3500 by adding the purchase price of $2500 and the amount of $4500 spent on repairs, then subtracting the amount recovered, $1500, and the $2000 concededly owing to the applicant.

When the application last came before the Court on 5 November 2001, the Court was provided with a written statement by the applicant and a supporting statement from his mother. The applicant indicated that he did not wish to be heard further. Because the Court considered that Lafferty should be afforded an opportunity to be heard in respect of any proposed expunging of the compensation order or reduction in its amount, the application had then to be adjourned. Lafferty had since indicated that he, likewise, does not wish to be heard further.

There was on that last occasion, in addition, limited material from Lafferty which suggested that the amount ordered in respect of compensation had in fact been a matter of agreement between the Prosecutor and defence counsel who appeared before the learned Judge. The Court then also considered that aspect should…

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 Davies

Details

AGLC: R v Davies [2002] QCA 29
Case: [2002] QCA 29
Decision Date: 15/02/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Davies, the applicant appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court for various offences, including entering premises with intent, common assault, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The court had ordered the applicant to pay compensation of $3500 to the victim, Mr. Lafferty, for the loss of his motorcycle. The applicant argued that the compensation order was excessive and should be reduced. The Court of Appeal heard the case and considered the matter, taking into account the arguments and submissions made by both parties. The Court found that the original compensation order was indeed excessive, and as such, the appeal was allowed to the extent of varying the order made with respect to compensation. The amount was reduced from $3500 to $2000, while all other aspects of the original sentence remained unchanged.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the compensation order imposed by the District Court was excessive and should be adjusted. The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented by both parties and examined the circumstances surrounding the case, including the damage caused to the victim's motorcycle and the applicant's involvement in the incident. The Court found that the original compensation order was indeed excessive and that the amount should be reduced to $2000. The Court of Appeal also took into account the established market value of the motorcycle, the amount recovered from the damaged motorcycle, and the offsetting debt.

The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, allowed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence to the extent of varying the compensation order. The Court found that the amount of $3500, as ordered by the District Court, was excessive and that a fair compensation amount should be set at $2000. The Court considered several factors in determining the appropriate compensation amount, including the market value of the motorcycle, the amount recovered from the damaged motorcycle, and the offsetting debt. The Court also considered that the applicant was not directly responsible for damaging the motorcycle, which warranted some reduction in the compensation amount. The Court of Appeal reduced the compensation order from $3500 to $2000, while all other aspects of the original sentence remained unchanged.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the sentence and reduced the compensation order from $3500 to $2000, while maintaining all other aspects of the original sentence. The Court found that the compensation amount ordered by the District Court was excessive, and after considering the various factors involved, determined that a fair compensation amount should be set at $2000. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of carefully considering the circumstances of each case when determining the appropriate compensation amount.

Orders