R v Dodds - [2003] QCA 540

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dodds [2003] QCA 540

PARTIES:

R
v
DODDS, David Anthony
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 251 of 2003
DC No 82 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

3 December 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 December 2003

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed to limit sentence imposed of five years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration to counts 1 and 2 and in respect of counts 3 and 4 order that no further penalty be imposed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – where applicant pleaded guilty to a number of offences contained in two indictments – where sentenced to effective term of three years imprisonment on first indictment and to effective term of five years imprisonment and declared “serious violent offender” on second indictment – where application related only to second indictment which involved robbery with violence whilst armed and deprivation of liberty – where long criminal history – where pleaded guilty and cooperated with authorities and expressed remorse – where made attempts to rehabilitate whilst on bail – where sentence imposed on indictment instead of individual sentences – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Jones [2000] QCA 84; CA No 393 of 1999, 17 March 2000, considered
R v Sinden [2000] QCA 408; CA No 163 of 2000, 2 October 2000, considered
R v Thornton [1999] QCA 78; CA No 422 of 1998, 18 March 1999, distinguished

COUNSEL:

N V Weston for the applicant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 7th of July 2003 to a number of offences, contained in two indictments. The first indictment contained two counts of wilful damage, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and one count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation. He was sentenced to an effective term of 3 years' imprisonment on those charges. He also was dealt with for two summary matters of obstructing police, arising from offences on this indictment, but was not further penalised. He then pleaded guilty to a second indictment, charging one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of robbery with violence whilst armed, one count of deprivation of liberty, and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to an effective term of five years' imprisonment on this indictment. The sentencing Judge, under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ("the Act"),…

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 Dodds

Details

AGLC: R v Dodds [2003] QCA 540
Case: [2003] QCA 540
Decision Date: 3 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an application from the respondent, Dodds, who was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment, and declared a serious violent offender, on the second of two indictments for a series of offences. The first indictment resulted in a sentence of three years imprisonment. The appeal pertained solely to the second indictment, which included charges of robbery with violence while armed and deprivation of liberty. The appellant pleaded guilty to the offences and cooperated with the authorities, expressing remorse and making efforts to rehabilitate while on bail.

The primary legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account various factors such as the appellant's criminal history, his cooperation with the authorities, his expression of remorse, and his attempts at rehabilitation. The court also needed to consider whether the sentence, which was a cumulative one rather than individual sentences for each count, was appropriate. The court examined the principles of sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case to determine if the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the cumulative nature of the sentence and the mitigating factors presented. The court acknowledged the appellant's criminal history but also recognised his cooperation, expression of remorse, and efforts to rehabilitate. The court determined that the sentence did not adequately reflect the individual circumstances of the offences and the mitigating factors presented. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal, modifying the sentence to a five-year term for counts 1 and 2, and ordering that no further penalty be imposed for counts 3 and 4.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed to limit sentence imposed of five years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration to counts 1 and 2 and in respect of counts 3 and 4 order that no further penalty be imposed

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 Dodds [2003] QCA 540
PARTIES:	R v DODDS, David Anthony (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 251 of 2003 DC No 82 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	3 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 December 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal allowed to limit sentence imposed of five years imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration to counts 1 and 2 and in respect of counts 3 and 4 order that no further penalty be imposed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – where applicant pleaded guilty to a number of offences contained in two indictments – where sentenced to effective term of three years imprisonment on first indictment and to effective term of five years imprisonment and declared “serious violent offender” on second indictment – where application related only to second indictment which involved robbery with violence whilst armed and deprivation of liberty – where long criminal history – where pleaded guilty and cooperated with authorities and expressed remorse – where made attempts to rehabilitate whilst on bail – where sentence imposed on indictment instead of individual sentences – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Jones [2000] QCA 84; CA No 393 of 1999, 17 March 2000, considered R v Sinden [2000] QCA 408; CA No 163 of 2000, 2 October 2000, considered R v Thornton [1999] QCA 78; CA No 422 of 1998, 18 March 1999, distinguished
COUNSEL:	N V Weston for the applicant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent