R v Finn (No. 2) - [2023] QSC 43

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Finn (No. 2) [2023] QSC 43

PARTIES:
R

(Crown)
v
CHRISTOPHER JAMES FINN
(Defendant)

FILENO/S: Indictment No 1263 of 2022, ex officio indictment presented 2 February 2023, Bench Charge Sheet No 46 of 2023

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING: Criminal

ORIGINATINGCOURT: Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVEREDON: 10 March 2023 (ex tempore)

DELIVEREDAT: Brisbane

HEARINGDATE: 10 March 2023

JUDGE: Applegarth J

ORDER:
1.   I find that you have been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of a suspended sentence of three months imposed at the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 14 January 2022, and order that you serve the whole of the suspended imprisonment.

2.   On count 2 of indictment number 1263 of 2022 (trafficking in dangerous drugs), you are sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of four years.

3.   Convictions are recorded on each of the other counts on that indictment, with no further penalty.

4.   Convictions are recorded on each of the summary offences, with no further penalty.

5.   On the single-count ex officio indictment (unlawful possession of a Category H weapon in a public place), you are sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months.

6. The period of 50 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 7 September 2021 and 26 October 2021 is declared pursuant to section 159A as pre-sentence custody, and is deemed to be time served under the above concurrent sentences.

7.   The period of 194 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 28 August 2022 and 9 March 2023 is not

declared pursuant to section 159A as pre-sentence custody.

8. I order that you be eligible for parole on 19 January 2024.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – HARDSHIP – where a

distinguished war veteran developed PTSD and other mental illnesses after three tours of duty in Afghanistan – where those conditions and inadequate treatment of them resulted in sleep deprivation and had other serious consequences – where the veteran resorted to illicit drugs as a form of self-medication – where he currently is in a maximum security prison with inadequate access to the specialised PTSD treatment that he needs – where his current inability to access specialised treatment will exacerbate his war-caused mental health conditions, and jeopardise his rehabilitation – where the defendant shares a cell that was designed to accommodate one prisoner – the relevance of the defendant’s mental illness to the harshness of his past and future time in custody – what is just punishment for the defendant’s crimes, given his personal circumstances

Corrective Services Act 2006, s 209, 211

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A

R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183, cited
R v Finn [2023] QSC 10, cited
R v Nagy [2003] QCA 175, cited

COUNSEL:

C Cook for the Crown

A S McDougall for the Defendant

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the Crown

Owens and Associates for the Defendant

DRAFT REMARKS TO BE REVISED

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Finn (No. 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] QSC 43
Decision Date: 10 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Finn (No. 2) involved a distinguished war veteran who had served three tours in Afghanistan. The veteran developed post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and other mental health conditions as a result of his service. The veteran's mental health deteriorated further due to inadequate treatment, leading to sleep deprivation and other serious consequences. In an attempt to self-medicate, the veteran resorted to using illicit drugs. He was currently incarcerated in a maximum-security prison, where he faced inadequate access to the specialised PTSD treatment required for his condition. The court considered the impact of the veteran's mental health issues on his current and future time in custody, and the need for a just punishment that took into account his personal circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into consideration his military background, the onset of his mental health conditions, and the impact of his incarceration on his mental health. The court had to weigh the seriousness of the offences committed by the defendant against his personal circumstances, and consider whether the sentence imposed would be just and appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court found that the defendant had been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of a suspended sentence. As a result, the court ordered the defendant to serve the whole of the suspended imprisonment. The court also sentenced the defendant to a concurrent term of imprisonment of four years on count 2 of the indictment (trafficking in dangerous drugs) and a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months on the ex officio indictment (unlawful possession of a Category H weapon in a public place). The court deemed the periods of pre-sentence custody as time served under the concurrent sentences.

In summary, the court imposed a sentence on the defendant that took into account his personal circumstances, including his military background and mental health conditions. The court deemed the periods of pre-sentence custody as time served under the concurrent sentences. The court also recorded convictions on each of the other counts on the indictment, and on each of the summary offences, with no further penalty.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I find that you have been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of a suspended sentence of three months imposed at the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 14 January 2022, and order that you serve the whole of the suspended imprisonment.

2. On count 2 of indictment number 1263 of 2022 (trafficking in dangerous drugs), you are sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of four years.

3. Convictions are recorded on each of the other counts on that indictment, with no further penalty.

4. Convictions are recorded on each of the summary offences, with no further penalty.

5. On the single-count ex officio indictment (unlawful possession of a Category H weapon in a public place), you are sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months.

6. The period of 50 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 7 September 2021 and 26 October 2021 is declared pursuant to section 159A as pre-sentence custody, and is deemed to be time served under the above concurrent sentences.

7. The period of 194 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 28 August 2022 and 9 March 2023 is not

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.

CITATION:	R v Finn (No. 2) [2023] QSC 43
PARTIES:	R (Crown) v CHRISTOPHER JAMES FINN (Defendant)
FILENO/S:	Indictment No 1263 of 2022, ex officio indictment presented 2 February 2023, Bench Charge Sheet No 46 of 2023
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Criminal
ORIGINATINGCOURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVEREDON:	10 March 2023 (ex tempore)
DELIVEREDAT:	Brisbane
HEARINGDATE:	10 March 2023
JUDGE:	Applegarth J
ORDER:	1. I find that you have been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment during the operational period of a suspended sentence of three months imposed at the Wynnum Magistrates Court on 14 January 2022, and order that you serve the whole of the suspended imprisonment. 2. On count 2 of indictment number 1263 of 2022 (trafficking in dangerous drugs), you are sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of four years. 3. Convictions are recorded on each of the other counts on that indictment, with no further penalty. 4. Convictions are recorded on each of the summary offences, with no further penalty. *5. On the single-count ex officio* indictment (unlawful possession of a Category H weapon in a public place), you are sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of 18 months. 6. The period of 50 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 7 September 2021 and 26 October 2021 is declared pursuant to section 159A as pre-sentence custody, and is deemed to be time served under the above concurrent sentences. 7. The period of 194 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 28 August 2022 and 9 March 2023 is not**