R v Engeln

Case [2014] QCA 313

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Engeln [2014] QCA 313

PARTIES:

R
v
ENGELN, Daniel Arthur
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 235 of 2014
DC No 267 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

2 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Mullins and Henry JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to six Commonwealth sex offences involving the use of a carriage service and one State offence of knowingly possessing child exploitation material – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with release after nine months – where the applicant appeals on the basis the sentencing judge erred by failing to properly determine the applicant’s culpability for the Commonwealth offences, failing to comply with Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 16 and 17 and Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 9 and 13 – where the applicant seeks reduction of sentence – whether there was inadequate discounting of the sentence having regard to the applicant’s remorse and pleas of guilty – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 17A
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s, 474.26, s 474.27
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 228D
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, s 13

Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 88 ALJR 372; (2014) 305 ALR 323; [2014] HCA 2, cited
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6, applied
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Hizhnikov (2008) 192 A Crim R 69; [2008] VSCA 269, distinguished
Matthews v R; Vu v R; Hashmi v R [2014] VSCA 291, applied
R v Fuller [2010] NSWCCA 192, distinguished
R v Gajjar (2008) 192 A Crim R 76; [2008] VSCA 268, considered
R v Gilles; Ex parte Attorney-General [2002] 1 Qd R 404; [2000] QCA 503, applied
R v Hickey[2011] QCA 385, applied
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63, [2003] QCA 175, applied
R v Smith[2010] QCA 220, applied
R v Sykes[2009] QCA 267, applied
R v Verburgt[2009] QCA 33, applied
Rampley v R [2010] NSWCCA 293, considered
State of Western Australia v Collier (2007) 178 A Crim R 310; [2007] WASCA 250, applied

COUNSEL:

A Boe for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Benjamin & Leonardo Criminal Defence Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Henry J and the order proposed by his Honour.

  1. MULLINS J:  I…

Continue reading R v Engeln

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Engeln [2014] QCA 313
Case
[2014] QCA 313
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Engeln, appealed against his sentence after pleading guilty to six Commonwealth sex offences involving the use of a carriage service and one State offence of knowingly possessing child exploitation material. Engeln was sentenced to three years imprisonment with release after nine months. He appealed on the basis that the sentencing judge failed to properly determine his culpability for the Commonwealth offences and did not comply with certain statutory requirements. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and sought a reduction in his sentence.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge erred by not properly determining the appellant's culpability and by not adequately discounting the sentence for his pleas of guilty and remorse. The court noted that the sentencing judge had a broad discretion in determining the appropriate sentence, and that the appellant's pleas of guilty and remorse were relevant factors to be considered. However, the court found that the sentencing judge had properly exercised his discretion and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that the appellant had not shown that the sentence was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the court.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence and refused the application for leave to appeal. The appellant's sentence of three years imprisonment with release after nine months was upheld. The court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed and the sentence upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.