Legal Research
Cases
R v Dossi

R v Dossi

Case [1995] QCA 204 2 June 1995

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 204
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No. 95 of 1995
[R v. Dossi]

THE QUEEN

STEVEN MALCOLM DOSSI

Applicant

Fitzgerald P.

McPherson J.A Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 02/06/1995

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCES REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Pleas to 28 charges on two indictments - 45 other offences taken into account pursuant to S.189 Penalties and Sentences Act. Four years imprisonment with recommendation for parole after serving 15 months imprisonment. Some offences committed while on bail and on probation. Prior criminal history. Eighteen years old at sentencing.
Counsel:	Mr. P. Alcorn for the applicant Mr. P. Ridgway for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing date:	16 May 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 02/06/95.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against sentences of four years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after serving fifteen months' imprisonment and also against a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for what he describes as "breach of probation".

All the sentences were imposed by a Judge of District Courts on 24 February 1995 after pleas of guilty on that day. The sentences of four years were imposed in respect of pleas of guilty to three offences of housebreaking and nine of entering a dwelling house with intent. On 24 February 1995 the applicant pleaded guilty to twenty-eight charges contained in two indictments then before the Court. These charges included housebreaking, entering a dwelling- house with intent, stealing, attempted stealing, receiving stolen property and obtaining goods by false pretences.

At the same time the applicant asked the Court (pursuant to s.189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act) that forty-five other offences be taken into account when sentences were imposed for the offences in the two indictments to which he had pleaded guilty. The Court acceded to this request.

The forty-five other offences included eleven of house-breaking and ten of entering a dwelling-house with intent.

The offences charged in the two indictments were committed between 28 September 1992 and 14 October 1994 - two of the offences were committed on or about 28 September 1992 and the rest on occasions between 29 January 1994 and 14 October 1994 (both dates inclusive).

In August and September 1993 the applicant had committed five offences to which he had pleaded guilty before another Judge of District Courts on 9 September 1994. These five offences included one of housebreaking and one of entering a dwelling-house with intent. On that day he was placed on probation for two years in respect of one of the five charges and for the remaining charges he was ordered to perform one hundred hours unpaid community service.

However, before appearing in court on 9 September 1994 the applicant had been arrested and been on bail in respect of the offences committed in August and September 1993 and while on such…

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 Dossi

Details

AGLC: R v Dossi [1995] QCA 204
Case: [1995] QCA 204
Decision Date: 2/06/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dossi involved the defendant, Dossi, who had pleaded guilty to 28 charges across two separate indictments. The court had to consider 45 additional offences under section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. Dossi was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving 15 months. The court noted that some of the offences were committed while Dossi was on bail and probation, and he had a prior criminal history. At the time of sentencing, Dossi was 18 years old.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Dossi, taking into account the totality of his offending, his age, the nature of the offences, and his previous criminal conduct. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing as outlined in the relevant legislation, particularly the deterrent effect, the protection of the community, and the rehabilitation of the offender.

The court emphasised the seriousness of Dossi's criminal conduct, particularly given the repeated offending while on bail and probation. It considered his age and prior criminal history, which included numerous prior offences. The court also took into account the need for deterrence and the protection of the community. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of four years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after serving 15 months, was appropriate. The court recognised the importance of providing Dossi with an opportunity for rehabilitation while also ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of his offending.

The final orders of the court were that Dossi be sentenced to four years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole eligibility after serving 15 months. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the totality of Dossi's offending, his age, and his prior criminal history, while also considering the principles of sentencing relevant to the case.

Orders