Legal Research
Cases
R v Falconi

R v Falconi

Case [2014] QCA 230 16 September 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230

PARTIES:

R
v
FALCONI, Daniel
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 97 of 2014
DC No 1048 of 2013
DC No 1170 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

16 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 September 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to a Queensland indictment charging trafficking in cannabis; producing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams; unlawfully possessing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams; having in his possession a set of scales for use in connection with the commission of the crime of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams; knowingly possessing money obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug; and possessing a vehicle obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to a Commonwealth indictment charging conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth – where the applicant was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months on 6 January 2014 for the Queensland offences – where the applicant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment to commence on 6 January 2014 (the date the applicant became eligible for parole on the Queensland offences) with a non-parole period of two years for the Commonwealth offence – where the Queensland and Commonwealth sentences were partly cumulative – where the applicant applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against the sentence – where the application was over seven months out of time – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the Commonwealth sentence was manifestly excessive when compared to that of his co‑offender – whether the application for extension of time should be granted

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671(3)

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
R v Boyd[2013] QCA 335, cited
R v Brienza[2010] QCA 15, cited
R v Burgoyne[2005] QCA 28, cited
R v Chan, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Indictment No 3189 of 2003, Hoath DCJ, 6 April 2004, cited
R v Collins[2009] QCA 387, cited
R v Harm, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Southport, 9 February 2001, cited
R v Lake, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Indictment No 3079 of 2007, Forde DCJ, 12 June 2008, cited
R v McMillan[2005] QCA 93, cited
R v Philp, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Reid DCJ, 23…

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 Falconi

Details

AGLC: R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230
Case: [2014] QCA 230
Decision Date: 16 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Falconi involved an appeal against the sentence handed down by the court. The applicant had pleaded guilty to multiple charges under both Queensland and Commonwealth law, including trafficking in cannabis, producing and possessing cannabis in large quantities, possessing scales for drug measurement, possessing money and a vehicle obtained from drug trafficking, and conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. Following the plea, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment terms for both the Queensland and Commonwealth charges, with the sentences partly cumulative. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and disproportionate when compared to the sentence of a co-offender.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and if the Commonwealth sentence was disproportionately severe compared to that of the co-offender. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the application for an extension of time to appeal the sentence should be granted, despite it being over seven months late. The court was required to balance the applicant's arguments against the principle of finality in criminal sentencing and the provisions of the relevant legislation governing appeals.

The court examined the arguments presented and considered the severity of the sentences in relation to the crimes committed. The court found that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and did not constitute an error in principle. The applicant's argument that the Commonwealth sentence was disproportionately severe when compared to the co-offender's sentence was also rejected as there were sufficient distinctions in the roles and contributions of each offender. The court further held that the application for an extension of time to appeal was not warranted as it was significantly beyond the permissible timeframe, and the applicant had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension.

The court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence, maintaining that the sentences imposed were appropriate and there were no grounds for an extension due to the lateness of the application. This decision underscored the importance of adhering to the legal timelines for appeals and the need for compelling reasons to extend such deadlines.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230

Most Recent Citation

R v KAQ; R v KAQ; Ex parte [2015] QCA 98

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

The King v Alt, Julien Michael
[2022] QCA 182

…onceded that the proper range was a head sentence of three to four years. Defence counsel referred to R v Broad & Prior [2010] QCA 53 and R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230. Defence counsel submitted to the sentencing judge that her Honour could structure an appropriate sentence which had regard to all the features of th…
R v Piccinato
[2019] QCA 123 Para 17

…the comparable authorities.[1] [1] R v Johnson [2015] QCA 171; R v Harris [2018] QCA 7; R v Leathers [2014] QCA 327; 247 A Crim R 137; R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230. Respondent’s submissions…
R v Harris
[2018] QCA 7

…[3] [2014] QCA 230.…
R v Kalaja
[2017] QCA 123 Para 17

…The sentencing judge did not accept R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230 as a comparable, as the sentence imposed on that offender “was clearly affected by the fact that there had to be consideration to the totality principle when having regard to the sentence being imposed for other offences”.…
R v Ta
[2016] QCA 305 Para 1

…e sentencing judge was not excessive[33] does not support the applicant’s contention that his sentence is manifestly excessive. [26][2014] QCA 230. [27][2015] QCA 98 at [9]–[10]. [28][2006] QCA 101. [29][2006] QCA 101 at [32]. [30][2006] QCA 101 at [8]. [31][2006] QCA 101 at [10]. [32][2006] QCA 101 at [14]–[15].…
R v Kaq; R v Kaq; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)
[2015] QCA 98 Para 9

…n kilograms being dried in his unit. He was sentenced on what seems to have been a rather charitable basis, that it was for his personal use. [10][2014] QCA 230. [11]At [8].…
R v Host
[2015] WASCA 23

…12] QCA 215 R v Baldock [2010] WASCA 170; (2010) 243 FLR 120 R v Barton [2006] QCA 18 R v CAK [2009] QCA 23 R v Desborough [2010] QCA 297 R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230 R v Hopkins [2008] NTSC 15; (2008) 22 NTLR 125 R v Jian Hou [2010] VSCA 36 R v Kertebani [2010] NSWCCA 221 R v Lovel [2007] QCA 281 R v Ly [2014] NSW…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 7 of 7 shown

R v Boyd
[2013] QCA 335 Para 1

…lay and establish that it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time: R v Tait [1] and R v Boyd .[2] [1][1999] 2 Qd R 667, 668. [2][2013] QCA 335.…
R v Brienza
[2010] QCA 15 Para 1

…n of justice and that the applicant ceased offending of his own volition. The sentence for the Queensland offence was not manifestly excessive. [10][2010] QCA 15. [11][2009] QCA 387. [12][2005] QCA 28.…
R v Collins
[2009] QCA 387 Para 1

…at the applicant ceased offending of his own volition. The sentence for the Queensland offence was not manifestly excessive. [10][2010] QCA 15. [11][2009] QCA 387. [12][2005] QCA 28.…
R v McMillan
[2005] QCA 93 Para 1

…role eligibility and non-parole periods when sentencing offenders for Queensland and Commonwealth offences is not purely a mathematical exercise. [13][2005] QCA 93, [16].…
R v Burgoyne
[2005] QCA 28 Para 1

…sed offending of his own volition. The sentence for the Queensland offence was not manifestly excessive. [10][2010] QCA 15. [11][2009] QCA 387. [12][2005] QCA 28.…
R v Tait
[1998] QCA 304

…ted R v Philp , unreported, District Court of Queensland, Reid DCJ, 23 February 2012, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Thompson , unreported, District Court of Queensland, Indictment No 884 of 2013, Dick SC DCJ, 16 October 2013, cited COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf M…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70

…lication for extension of time should be granted Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671(3) Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Boyd [2013] QCA 335, cited R v Brienza [2010] QCA 15, cited R v Burgoyne [2005] QCA 28, cited R v Chan , unreported, District Court of Queensland, Indictment No 3189 of…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Falconi [2014] QCA 230
PARTIES:	R v FALCONI, Daniel (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 97 of 2014 DC No 1048 of 2013 DC No 1170 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	16 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 September 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to a Queensland indictment charging trafficking in cannabis; producing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams; unlawfully possessing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams; having in his possession a set of scales for use in connection with the commission of the crime of possessing a dangerous drug in excess of 500 grams; knowingly possessing money obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug; and possessing a vehicle obtained from trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the applicant was convicted on a plea of guilty to a Commonwealth indictment charging conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth – where the applicant was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 18 months on 6 January 2014 for the Queensland offences – where the applicant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment to commence on 6 January 2014 (the date the applicant became eligible for parole on the Queensland offences) with a non-parole period of two years for the Commonwealth offence – where the Queensland and Commonwealth sentences were partly cumulative – where the applicant applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against the sentence – where the application was over seven months out of time – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the Commonwealth sentence was manifestly excessive when compared to that of his co‑offender – whether the application for extension of time should be granted Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671(3) Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Boyd[2013] QCA 335, cited R v Brienza[2010] QCA 15, cited R v Burgoyne[2005] QCA 28, cited R v Chan, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Indictment No 3189 of 2003, Hoath DCJ, 6 April 2004, cited R v Collins[2009] QCA 387, cited R v Harm, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Southport, 9 February 2001, cited R v Lake, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Indictment No 3079 of 2007, Forde DCJ, 12 June 2008, cited R v McMillan[2005] QCA 93, cited R v Philp, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Reid DCJ, 23…