R v Finch - [2009] QCA 276

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Finch [2009] QCA 276

PARTIES:

R
v
FINCH, Michael Calvin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 101 of 2009
DC No 125 of 2009
DC No 133 of 2009
DC No 134 of 2009
DC No 135 of 2009
DC No 136 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

15 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2009

JUDGES:

Muir and Chesterman JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to various counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, burglary, fraud, stealing, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, attempted unlawful possession of a motor vehicle and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle – where applicant sentenced to six years imprisonment for the burglary, entering premises, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle offences, and lesser concurrent sentences for the other offences – where applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 33(4)
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 650
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 62

R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88; [2007] QCA 247, cited
R v Clarke[2006] QCA 356, distinguished
R v Dawson[2007] QCA 343, considered
R v Earnshaw & Hartcher[1993] QCA 519, considered
R v McKinless[2004] QCA 280, considered
R v Mitchell, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Nase DCJ, 22 May 2000, considered
R v Perrem[2000] QCA 339, considered
R v Phillips[2008] QCA 5, considered
R v Ross[2004] QCA 21, considered
R v Russell[2005] QCA 392, distinguished
R v Slade[2003] QCA 191, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

A: MUIR J I agree with the reasons of White J and with the order she proposes.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree with the order proposed by White J for the reasons given by her Honour.

WHITE J: The applicant, who appears on his own behalf, seeks leave to appeal against the severity of the sentences imposed upon him in the District Court at Southport on 17 April 2009.

On 16 April 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty to 38 counts on one indictment which comprised 15 counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle; five counts of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence; five counts 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 Finch

Details

AGLC: R v Finch [2009] QCA 276
Case: [2009] QCA 276
Decision Date: 15 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Finch, the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious criminal offences, including unlawful use of a motor vehicle, entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, burglary, fraud, stealing, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, attempted unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle, was sentenced to a total of six years imprisonment for the more serious charges, with concurrent lesser sentences for the other offences. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, warranting the grant of leave to appeal. The court considered the gravity of the offences committed, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing. The court noted the severity of the offences, particularly the burglary and entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, but also considered the concurrent sentences for the other charges and the overall quantum of the sentence.

The court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence imposed was within the range that could reasonably be expected for such offences. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant had not demonstrated that the sentence was inadequate or disproportionate. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence

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

MUIR J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MUIR J

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Finch [2009] QCA 276
PARTIES:	R v FINCH, Michael Calvin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 101 of 2009 DC No 125 of 2009 DC No 133 of 2009 DC No 134 of 2009 DC No 135 of 2009 DC No 136 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	15 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 September 2009
JUDGES:	Muir and Chesterman JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Refuse the application for leave to appeal against sentence
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant pleaded guilty to various counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, burglary, fraud, stealing, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, attempted unlawful possession of a motor vehicle and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle – where applicant sentenced to six years imprisonment for the burglary, entering premises, unlawful use of a motor vehicle and unlawful entry into a motor vehicle offences, and lesser concurrent sentences for the other offences – where applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive – whether leave to appeal should be granted Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 33(4) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 650 Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 62 R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88; [2007] QCA 247, cited R v Clarke[2006] QCA 356, distinguished R v Dawson[2007] QCA 343, considered R v Earnshaw & Hartcher[1993] QCA 519, considered R v McKinless[2004] QCA 280, considered R v Mitchell, unreported, District Court of Queensland, Nase DCJ, 22 May 2000, considered R v Perrem[2000] QCA 339, considered R v Phillips[2008] QCA 5, considered R v Ross[2004] QCA 21, considered R v Russell[2005] QCA 392, distinguished R v Slade[2003] QCA 191, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent