R v Dodd - [2010] QCA 31

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dodd [2010] QCA 31

PARTIES:

R
v
DODD, Mathew Lee
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 261 of 2009
DC No 325 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

26 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir JA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed, only to the extent of setting aside the order that a conviction is recorded on each count, instead ordering that no conviction is recorded on each count.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of serious assault – the applicant was mistakenly sentenced in the Magistrates Court to two years probation with no convictions recorded – sentence vacated and committed to District Court – sentenced to two years probation and convictions recorded on each count – the District Court judge did not consider whether or not to record convictions – the applicant was 22 years old at the time of offence, made an early guilty plea, had no criminal history, had good work history, made efforts at rehabilitation and expressed remorse – references tendered suggested offending was out of character – the recording of a conviction would detrimentally impact the applicant's economic and social well-being – whether recording convictions was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 340(g), s 421(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(1), s 12(2)(a)-(c)

R v Seiler[2003] QCA 217, considered

COUNSEL:

C Cuthbert for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

O' Sullivans Law Firm for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The applicant, Mathew Lee Dodd, pleaded guilty on 18 September 2009 in the Ipswich District Court to one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of serious assault. He was sentenced to two years probation with convictions recorded. He applies for leave to appeal against sentence contending that the trial judge's sentencing discretion miscarried only insofar as convictions were recorded.

Dodd was jointly charged with Jake Anthony Brock and Brendan Craig Thoms. They both also pleaded guilty that day. They were each sentenced to 18 months imprisonment on both counts. The judge fixed an immediate parole release date for Thoms and fixed Brock's parole release date at 18 November 2009. Thoms was 20 years old and had some criminal history for minor offences of violence and for breach of probation. Brock was 25 years old with a more extensive criminal history including offences of violence and was in custody when sentenced…

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 Dodd

Details

AGLC: R v Dodd [2010] QCA 31
Case: [2010] QCA 31
Decision Date: 26 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Dodd, the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to charges of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and serious assault, appealed against the decision of the District Court to record convictions. The applicant had originally been sentenced to two years probation in the Magistrates Court with no convictions recorded, but due to an error, the sentence was vacated and the matter was committed to the District Court. The District Court re-sentenced the applicant to two years probation but ordered convictions to be recorded on each count, a decision which the applicant now seeks to appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the recording of convictions was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that recording convictions would have a detrimental impact on his economic and social well-being, despite his early guilty plea, lack of criminal history, good work history, efforts at rehabilitation, and expressions of remorse. The applicant submitted that his offending was out of character, a fact supported by references tendered. The court was required to determine whether the District Court judge erred in not considering the applicant’s personal circumstances and the potential long-term impacts of recording convictions.

In allowing the appeal, the court found that the District Court judge did not adequately consider the personal circumstances of the applicant and the potential impact of recording convictions. The court held that the recording of convictions was manifestly excessive given the applicant's age at the time of the offence, his early guilty plea, absence of criminal history, positive work history, efforts towards rehabilitation, and remorse. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to consider the long-term impacts on the individual. Consequently, the court set aside the order that a conviction is recorded on each count, instead ordering that no conviction is recorded on each count.

The orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted, and the appeal was allowed to the extent of setting aside the order that a conviction is recorded on each count, instead ordering that no conviction is recorded on each count.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. The appeal is allowed, only to the extent of setting aside the order that a conviction is recorded on each count, instead ordering that no conviction is recorded on each count.

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 Dodd [2010] QCA 31
PARTIES:	R v DODD, Mathew Lee (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 261 of 2009 DC No 325 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	26 February 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2010
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir JA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. 2. The appeal is allowed, only to the extent of setting aside the order that a conviction is recorded on each count, instead ordering that no conviction is recorded on each count.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of serious assault – the applicant was mistakenly sentenced in the Magistrates Court to two years probation with no convictions recorded – sentence vacated and committed to District Court – sentenced to two years probation and convictions recorded on each count – the District Court judge did not consider whether or not to record convictions – the applicant was 22 years old at the time of offence, made an early guilty plea, had no criminal history, had good work history, made efforts at rehabilitation and expressed remorse – references tendered suggested offending was out of character – the recording of a conviction would detrimentally impact the applicant's economic and social well-being – whether recording convictions was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 340(g), s 421(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(1), s 12(2)(a)-(c) R v Seiler[2003] QCA 217, considered
COUNSEL:	C Cuthbert for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	O' Sullivans Law Firm for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent