R v Davis - [2012] QCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Davis [2012] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
DAVIS, Aaron Steven
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 268 of 2011
SC No 712 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2011

JUDGES:

White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction of attempted murder and to seek leave to appeal against sentence refused.

2. Application for bail refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty to attempted murder and numerous other charges, including two counts of attempted armed robbery in company with wounding – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where the head sentence imposed was for the attempted murder and shorter concurrent sentences were imposed for the other offences – where the applicant wished to appeal on grounds of miscarriage of justice, error of law or mixed law and fact, insufficiency of evidence and abuse of process – whether the applicant could establish that he pleaded guilty after being unlawfully induced, threatened or intimidated

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IN GENERAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – where applicant alleged that he was not afforded the opportunity of sighting the Crown’s evidence against him – where the applicant alleged that the Crown’s evidence was entirely circumstantial and insufficient to support a finding of guilt – where the court cannot go behind a plea of guilty unless it is persuaded that there was a miscarriage of justice – where the complainant could not identify the applicant as the person who shot him – where, had the matter gone to trial, it would have been for the jury to decide to the requisite standard that the applicant actually formed the intention to kill – whether the court was persuaded there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to very serious offences, especially the attempted murder – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where the complainant was shot four times, receiving multiple serious physical injuries – where the complainant spent two weeks in hospital – where the complainant was diagnosed as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder as a result of what happened – where the applicant was on bail when he committed most of the offences – where the sentencing judge took account of mitigating factors in reducing the head…

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 [2012] QCA 97
Case: [2012] QCA 97
Decision Date: 17 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Davis, the applicant sought to appeal against his conviction for attempted murder and other serious charges, as well as the sentence imposed. The applicant, Davis, was convicted on his own pleas of guilty to attempted murder, attempted armed robbery in company with wounding, and other related offences. He was sentenced to a total of 12 years imprisonment, with the head sentence for attempted murder being the longest, running concurrently with shorter sentences for the other offences. Davis's appeal against his conviction and sentence raised several legal issues, including the basis for an appeal against a guilty plea, the sufficiency of the evidence, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether Davis could establish that he pleaded guilty under duress or coercion, which would justify an appeal on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice. The court noted that the Crown’s evidence was primarily circumstantial and that the complainant could not identify Davis as the person who shot him. However, the court held that it could not go behind a plea of guilty unless a miscarriage of justice was demonstrated. The court found that the evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient for a jury to conclude that Davis intended to kill, as the jury would have been tasked with determining his guilt to the requisite standard. Consequently, the court was not persuaded that a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

Regarding the sentence, the court considered whether it was manifestly excessive. Davis's guilty plea to very serious offences, the severity of the attempted murder, and the complainant's serious injuries were all factors weighed by the court. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors that the sentencing judge considered in reducing the head sentence but concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Thus, the application for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the application for bail was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction of attempted murder and to seek leave to appeal against sentence refused.

2. Application for bail 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 Davis [2012] QCA 97
PARTIES:	R v DAVIS, Aaron Steven (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 268 of 2011 SC No 712 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2011
JUDGES:	White JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction of attempted murder and to seek leave to appeal against sentence refused. 2. Application for bail refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant was convicted on his own pleas of guilty to attempted murder and numerous other charges, including two counts of attempted armed robbery in company with wounding – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where the head sentence imposed was for the attempted murder and shorter concurrent sentences were imposed for the other offences – where the applicant wished to appeal on grounds of miscarriage of justice, error of law or mixed law and fact, insufficiency of evidence and abuse of process – whether the applicant could establish that he pleaded guilty after being unlawfully induced, threatened or intimidated APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NEW TRIAL - IN GENERAL AND PARTICULAR GROUNDS – IN GENERAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – CIRCUMSTANCES NOT INVOLVING MISCARRIAGE – where applicant alleged that he was not afforded the opportunity of sighting the Crown’s evidence against him – where the applicant alleged that the Crown’s evidence was entirely circumstantial and insufficient to support a finding of guilt – where the court cannot go behind a plea of guilty unless it is persuaded that there was a miscarriage of justice – where the complainant could not identify the applicant as the person who shot him – where, had the matter gone to trial, it would have been for the jury to decide to the requisite standard that the applicant actually formed the intention to kill – whether the court was persuaded there was a miscarriage of justice CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to very serious offences, especially the attempted murder – where the applicant was sentenced to 12 years imprisonment – where the complainant was shot four times, receiving multiple serious physical injuries – where the complainant spent two weeks in hospital – where the complainant was diagnosed as suffering post-traumatic stress disorder and a major depressive disorder as a result of what happened – where the applicant was on bail when he committed most of the offences – where the sentencing judge took account of mitigating factors in reducing the head…