R v Easton - [2002] QCA 110

[2002] QCA 110

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
WHITE J
PHILIPPIDES J

CA No 12 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ANTHONY MICHAEL EASTON Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/03/2002

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice White to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

WHITE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence. In his application form he complains about the failure to obtain a recommendation for early release or an order for a partially suspended sentence from the sentencing Judge but he does not complain about the head sentence and that is the position which Mr Weston, who appears for the applicant, has taken on this application.

The applicant pleaded guilty on ex officio indictment on 30 November 2001 in the District Court to nine counts of breaking and entering premises and stealing, two counts of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, two counts of attempted entry of premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, one count of entering premises and stealing, two counts of stealing and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

A schedule of summary offences was taken into account pursuant to section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. There were said by the learned sentencing Judge to be more than 50 such summary offences. His Honour below imposed a head sentence of 35 months for all matters save the stealing and unlawful use for which he imposed terms of imprisonment of six and 12 months respectively.

The last five offences were committed while the applicant was on bail for the earlier offences. His Honour imposed a cumulative sentence of one month for breach of bail making a total head sentence of three years. His Honour took as his starting point a sentence of four years which was proposed by the prosecutor and not really disputed by defence counsel although he tended to drift towards three years as the appropriate head sentence in the course of his submissions.

His Honour then reduced that head sentence of four years by 12 months to reflect the plea of guilty and matters personal to the applicant and made no other recommendation. A declaration of 206 days of presentence custody was made. The first group of offences occurred between 1 January and 7 March 2001. The applicant was taken into custody on 8 March until 13 June when he was released on Supreme Court bail.

The final group of offences occurred in early August 2001. He was returned to custody on 15 August and remained in custody until his sentence on 30 November. The bulk of the indictable offences consisted of the applicant breaking into various commercial premises and stealing whatever goods he no doubt thought he could sell or exchange. The applicant was addicted to amphetamines and told the police that he had a gambling addiction.

The total loss, including damage to the various premises, was $42,435. The schedule of facts which was tendered by the prosecution sets out the detail of…

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 Easton

Details

AGLC: R v Easton [2002] QCA 110
Case: [2002] QCA 110
Decision Date: 21/03/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Easton, the applicant, Anthony Michael Easton, sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The appeal was specifically focused on the sentence imposed by the District Court, which included a head sentence of three years for various offences, such as breaking and entering premises, stealing, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The applicant did not challenge the head sentence itself but rather the absence of a recommendation for early release or a partially suspended sentence. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider his extensive cooperation with the police, which was seen as an indicator of remorse. The applicant had admitted to numerous offences and assisted the police in identifying locations of his offending. The Court of Appeal considered several comparable cases to determine if the four-year head sentence was appropriate. The Court found that the sentencing judge had considered the mitigating factors, including the applicant's cooperation with the police and his drug addiction, which significantly influenced his criminal behaviour. The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders