R v Dawson - [2004] QCA 438

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dawson [2004] QCA 438

PARTIES:

R
v
DAWSON, David Ashwell
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 270 of 2004
DC No 118 of 2004
DC No 1752 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

15 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to seven offences of burglary and stealing, five offences of armed robbery, one offence of armed robbery with personal violence and two offences of attempted robbery – offences committed during operational period of unserved sentence of imprisonment – sentenced to effective term of eight and a half years imprisonment – declared to be convicted of serious violent offences in respect of the robbery offences – whether declaration made sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 9A

R v Matthewson [2001] QCA 4; CA No 226 of 2000, 30 January 2001, cited
R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238; CA No 46 of 2001, 22 June 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Dawson pleaded guilty on 15 July 2004 to the following offences: one indictment charged him with seven offences of burglary and stealing, a second ex officio indictment charged him with five offences of armed robbery, one offence of armed robbery with personal violence and two offences of attempted armed robbery. These offences were committed during the operational period of an unserved sentence of imprisonment of 27 months.

The learned sentencing Judge decided to impose a significant head sentence on the most serious offences, those of robbery, to reflect Mr Dawson's overall criminality and to impose concurrent lesser terms of imprisonment on the remaining offences, including an order that the previously unserved suspended term of imprisonment be served concurrently.

The effect of the Judge's sentence was to order Dawson to serve eight and a half years imprisonment on each robbery offence, five years imprisonment for each burglary and stealing offence and to serve the 27 months imprisonment, being the unexpired term of the suspended sentence during which Mr Dawson committed further offences punishable by imprisonment, all concurrently. One hundred and thirty one days pre-sentence custody was declared as time served under the sentence.

The learned sentencing Judge also declared Mr Dawson to be convicted of serious violent offences in respect of the robbery offences.

Mr Dawson, who appears for himself in this application, contends that 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 Dawson

Details

AGLC: R v Dawson [2004] QCA 438
Case: [2004] QCA 438
Decision Date: 15 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case pleaded guilty to a series of serious criminal offences including burglary, armed robbery, armed robbery with personal violence, and attempted robbery. These offences were committed during a period when the applicant was serving an unserved sentence of imprisonment. The court sentenced the applicant to an effective term of eight and a half years imprisonment and declared the applicant to be convicted of serious violent offences in respect of the robbery offences. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that the declaration made the sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

The court was required to decide whether the declaration made by the sentencing judge regarding the nature of the offences resulted in a sentence that was manifestly excessive. This involved considering the character and severity of the offences, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the principle that a sentence should not be excessive in all the circumstances. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and whether any mitigating factors warranted a lesser sentence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It noted the seriousness of the offences and the need for the sentence to reflect the gravity of the crimes. The court considered the nature of the offences, the harm caused to victims, and the need for the sentence to have a deterrent effect. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and did not find the declaration to have rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The court therefore refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

No further orders were made by the court. The decision confirmed the sentence and the declaration made by the sentencing judge.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for 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 Dawson [2004] QCA 438
PARTIES:	R v DAWSON, David Ashwell (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 270 of 2004 DC No 118 of 2004 DC No 1752 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	15 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 November 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CHARACTER OF OFFENCE – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to seven offences of burglary and stealing, five offences of armed robbery, one offence of armed robbery with personal violence and two offences of attempted robbery – offences committed during operational period of unserved sentence of imprisonment – sentenced to effective term of eight and a half years imprisonment – declared to be convicted of serious violent offences in respect of the robbery offences – whether declaration made sentence manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Pt 9A R v Matthewson [2001] QCA 4; CA No 226 of 2000, 30 January 2001, cited R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238; CA No 46 of 2001, 22 June 2001, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent