R v Evelyn - [2020] QSC 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Evelyn [2020] QSC 97
PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
V
MARK WILLIAM EVELYN
(Defendant)
FILE NO/S: Indictment No 1794 of 2019, 1570 of 2018, 4 count indictment presented on 28 April 2020 and 3 count indictment presented on 28 April 2020
Bench Charge Sheet 1923 of 2019, 1650 of 2018 and 645 of
2020
DIVISION: Trial Division
PROCEEDING: Sentence
ORIGINATING Supreme Court at Brisbane
COURT:
DELIVERED ON: 6 May 2020
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 28 and 29 April 2020
JUDGE: Jackson J
ORDER:
The order of the Court is that:
1. A conviction is recorded in respect of each of the
offences and using the numbering on the attached chronology of the offences that is Exhibit 5 in the proceedings as follows:

1 and 34 Defendant is imprisoned for 4
years

63

Defendant is imprisoned for 3 years, to start from the end of the period of imprisonment the offender has been sentenced to serve for offences 1 and 34
10, 11 and 62 Defendant is imprisoned for 2
years

19

Defendant is imprisoned for 1 year 6 months
43, 51 to 61, 65 to 67, 70 to 72, 82, Defendant is imprisoned for 1
91 to 93 and 96 year
18, 31, 35, 41 and 44 Defendant is imprisoned for 6
months
9, 16, 23, 26 to 30, 36, 37, 68, 69, Defendant is imprisoned for 3
84 to 86 and 94 months

87

Defendant is imprisoned for 1 month to take effect from the expiration of the deprivation of liberty of the offender under these sentences except offence 88

88

Defendant is imprisoned for 1 month to take effect from the expiration of the deprivation of liberty of the offender under the sentence for offence 87
Each other offence on the

Defendant is not further
chronology of offences punished
2. The dates the defendant was held in custody in
circumstances to which s 159A(1) applies to the
offences are:

From To Days
8 March 2017 4 April 2017 29
10 October 2017 13 July 2018 277
12 December 28 April 2020 504
2018
3.   The time the defendant was held in presentence
custody was 810 days.
4.   I declare the time calculated of 810 days to be
imprisonment already served under the sentences.
5.    For clarity, except as expressly provided for offences 63, 87 and 88 all sentences are to be served concurrently.
6.   The date the defendant is eligible for parole is 29
April 2020.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS
–TOTALITY –GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the
defendant pleaded guilty to 97 offences – where the offending
could be categorised into two categories of offending: drug
offences and offences of fraud and dishonesty –where the
defendant had no previous criminal history – where the
prosecution submitted that the sentence should be structured so
as to notionally arrive at a head sentence for the most serious
offences upon the drug offending and the fraud offending
respectively, provided that the head…

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 Evelyn

Details

AGLC: R v Evelyn [2020] QSC 97
Case: [2020] QSC 97
Decision Date: 6 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Evelyn involved a dispute between the Crown and the defendant, Evelyn. The defendant was convicted on criminal charges and the matter before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the relevant factors that should be considered in determining the sentence, with a particular focus on the principle of totality and general sentencing principles.

The court examined the various factors that should be taken into account in sentencing, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and any mitigating or aggravating circumstances. The principle of totality was central to the court's consideration, requiring that the overall sentence should not be excessive and should reflect the totality of the offending behaviour. The court also considered the general principles of sentencing, which emphasise the need for a sentence that is proportionate to the gravity of the offence and that serves the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the sentence imposed by the lower court was unduly harsh and did not appropriately reflect the principle of totality. The court emphasised that the sentence should be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and should take into account all relevant factors, including the defendant's background and any mitigating circumstances. The court also noted that the sentence should not be disproportionate when considered in the context of other sentences for similar offences. Based on these considerations, the court ordered a retrial of the sentencing proceedings to ensure that the sentence imposed would be appropriate and just.

The court's decision in R v Evelyn highlights the importance of adhering to the principles of sentencing and the need for courts to carefully consider all relevant factors when determining an appropriate sentence. The case underscores the significance of the principle of totality and the requirement for proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and serves the broader purposes of the criminal justice system.

Orders