R v Drinkwater

[2006] QCA 82

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Drinkwater [2006] QCA 82

PARTIES:

R
v
DRINKWATER, John Charles
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 216 of 2005
DC No 149 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

22 March 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 March 2006

JUDGES:

Williams and Keane JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where the applicant was found guilty after a trial of extortion, wilful damage and attempted arson – where he was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment with terms of 12 months and three years to be served concurrently – where the applicant made lethal threats accompanied by physical violations of the complainant’s home – where at sentence it was acknowledged that the applicant had virtually no criminal record and a good work history – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Coleman [1995] QCA 549 considered

R v Shambrook [1997] QCA 356 considered

R v Stokes [1993] QCA 467 considered

R v Stratton [1992] QCA 102 considered

COUNSEL:

P Callaghan SC for the applicant
T A Fuller for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA:  I will ask Justice Keane to deliver his reasons first.

KEANE JA:  On 26 July 2005, the applicant was convicted, by the verdict of a jury after a trial conducted in the District Court of Queensland, on one count of extortion, one count of wilful damage and one count of attempted arson.  On 29 July 2005, the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment in respect of the extortion and concurrent terms of 12 months and three years for the wilful damage and attempted arson respectively.  The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the ground that his sentence was manifestly excessive.  The circumstances of the offence may be shortly stated.

At about 9.15 pm on 3 March 2004, the complainant was at his home when his attention was drawn to noises outside.  He noticed the smell of fuel in his carport and saw that his car was dripping with petrol.  He heard a car drive away, then he called the police.

On the following day, the applicant telephoned the complainant and asked for $50,000.  It was apparent from the terms of the demand that the caller was claiming to act for business associates of the complainant.  He warned the complainant that he could easily have set alight the complainant's car and that the complainant should pay up.  The complainant called the police.

On the morning of 28 May 2004, eight petrol bombs were thrown at the complainant's house and diesel was poured over his…