R v Davis - [2021] QCA 163

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Davis [2021] QCA 163

PARTIES:

R
v
DAVIS, David Andrew
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 41 of 2020
CA No 266 of 2020
DC No 157 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDINGS:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 14 November 2019 (Rinaudo DCJ); Date of Sentence: 3 March 2020 (Horneman-Wren SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

10 August 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 April 2021

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and Mullins JJA

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant pleaded guilty to 18 offences of a sexual nature committed during a period of 13 years, comprising six offences committed against each of three separate complainants – where the appellant also pleaded guilty to one offence of making child exploitation material and one offence of possessing child exploitation material – where the appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently for each of the two maintaining offences, accompanied by serious violent offence declarations for each offence – where the appellant received shorter concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining offences – where the appellant emphasises that he had no criminal history – where the appellant submits the sentencing judge referred to him as “scum” – whether, in all the circumstances, the sentence is manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant has produced no evidence in support of the proposed appeal against conviction – where the appellant asserts that he was given legal advice that his best chance was to plead guilty “even though one of the persons involved who accused me, I did not do anything to” – where the appellant asserts that he was advised that if he pleaded guilty he would be given a sentence of less than 10 years’ imprisonment – where the appellant asserts that he was not aware of statements by the complainants until shortly before he pleaded guilty and he was given no time to consider them – where the appellant acknowledges he had those statements two days before he pleaded guilty – whether the extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted – whether, in all the circumstances, there has been a miscarriage of justice

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v BBM [2008] QCA 162, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, applied
R v WBG[2018] QCA 284, cited

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the…

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 Davis

Details

AGLC: R v Davis [2021] QCA 163
Case: [2021] QCA 163
Decision Date: 10 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Davis, appealed against both his conviction and the sentence imposed following his guilty pleas to multiple serious sexual offences. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 10 years imprisonment for two child exploitation material offences and shorter concurrent terms for the remaining offences. The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the recording of his conviction.

The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the recording of the conviction. The appellant argued that his lack of a criminal history and derogatory remarks made by the sentencing judge should be considered. The appellant also sought to appeal against his conviction, claiming he was misled by legal advice to plead guilty, despite his denial of some offences, and that he was not provided sufficient time to review statements from the complainants before entering his pleas.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offences and the appellant’s criminal conduct over an extended period. The court also dismissed the appeal against conviction, noting that the appellant had no evidence to support his claims of being misled by legal advice and that he had been provided with the necessary statements before entering his pleas. The court concluded that there was no miscarriage of justice and dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

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 Davis [2021] QCA 163
PARTIES:	R v DAVIS, David Andrew (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 41 of 2020 CA No 266 of 2020 DC No 157 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Conviction: 14 November 2019 (Rinaudo DCJ); Date of Sentence: 3 March 2020 (Horneman-Wren SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	10 August 2021
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 April 2021
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and Mullins JJA
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant pleaded guilty to 18 offences of a sexual nature committed during a period of 13 years, comprising six offences committed against each of three separate complainants – where the appellant also pleaded guilty to one offence of making child exploitation material and one offence of possessing child exploitation material – where the appellant was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment to be served concurrently for each of the two maintaining offences, accompanied by serious violent offence declarations for each offence – where the appellant received shorter concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining offences – where the appellant emphasises that he had no criminal history – where the appellant submits the sentencing judge referred to him as “scum” – whether, in all the circumstances, the sentence is manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the appellant has produced no evidence in support of the proposed appeal against conviction – where the appellant asserts that he was given legal advice that his best chance was to plead guilty “even though one of the persons involved who accused me, I did not do anything to” – where the appellant asserts that he was advised that if he pleaded guilty he would be given a sentence of less than 10 years’ imprisonment – where the appellant asserts that he was not aware of statements by the complainants until shortly before he pleaded guilty and he was given no time to consider them – where the appellant acknowledges he had those statements two days before he pleaded guilty – whether the extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted – whether, in all the circumstances, there has been a miscarriage of justice Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v BBM [2008] QCA 162, cited R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, applied R v WBG[2018] QCA 284, cited
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf D Nardone for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the…