R v Donald

[2000] QCA 399

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA

CA No 179 of 2000

THE QUEEN

STUART ANGUS DONALD Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 28/09/2000

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced to three years' imprisonment to be suspended after 18 months for three years. He committed two offences of house-breaking and one of entering a dwelling. There were other offences of stealing, false pretences and attempted house-breaking which attracted lower terms of imprisonment.

He had a very substantial prior criminal history covering a period of eight years involving many offences of dishonesty and offences like those for which he was sentenced on this occasion. When he was sentenced he was 26 years old and the relevant offending covered the preceding three years.

Because of his drug problem and apparently because of a defence request for some certainty about his release date, the sentencing Judge suspended the sentences rather than recommending eligibility for parole. While it is true that property of great value was not involved, the learned Judge was rightly influenced by the need to deter crime like this which is prevalent in the community.

The cases of Hadden, CA 198 of 1996, and Peat, CA 187 of 1991, suggest to me that the three year term was at least mid-range for house-breaking by an offender with this prior record and arguably low range. That being so, the Judge's not having contemplated release prior to the applicant's serving one half of the head sentence does not mean that that sentence should be regarded as manifestly excessive and not reflecting properly the significance of the pleas of guilty. I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Donald was heard in the Court of Appeal, with de Jersey CJ, Pincus J, and Thomas J presiding. The applicant, Stuart Angus Donald, was appealing against his sentence of three years' imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, for three counts of house-breaking and one count of entering a dwelling. He also had convictions for stealing, false pretences, and attempted house-breaking. The applicant had a significant criminal history over eight years, with numerous offences of dishonesty and similar crimes. The sentencing judge chose to suspend the sentences due to the applicant's drug problem and a request from the defence for certainty regarding his release date.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and did not appropriately reflect the significance of the applicant's guilty pleas. The court was required to consider the nature and extent of the applicant's criminal history, the seriousness of the current offences, and the need to deter similar crimes in the community. The case law of Hadden and Peat was cited as relevant precedents in determining the appropriate sentencing range for the crimes committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence of three years' imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, was at least mid-range for an offender with the applicant's prior record and possibly low range. The court did not consider the sentencing judge's decision not to contemplate release before the applicant served half of the head sentence as grounds for deeming the sentence manifestly excessive. Therefore, the Court of Appeal refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. De Jersey CJ, Pincus J, and Thomas J all concurred in the decision. The application was denied, and the original sentence stood.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established