R v Gilles; ex parte - [2000] QCA 503

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Gilles; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 503
PARTIES: R
v
GILLES, Warwick David
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF
QUEENSLAND
(appellant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 156 of 2000
DC No 2775 of 1999
DC No 1122 of 2000
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 12 December 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 26 September 2000
JUDGE: Pincus, McPherson and Thomas JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – SEXUAL OFFENCES – BUGGERY AND INDECENT ASSAULT OR DEALING – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – sentences for sodomy and permitting sodomy
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – ASSISTANCE TO AUTHORITIES AND CO-OPERATION – respondent "on the periphery of a paedophile network" – gave assistance to authorities falling within s 13A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES, SENTENCES ON ESCAPE AND COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE – SENTENCES ON TWO OR MORE COUNTS – nine counts of sexual offences, including four of sodomy and three of permitting sodomy – highest sentence was two years' imprisonment, imposed in respect of six of the s 208 offences – all sentences to be served concurrently and suspended after three months – whether, in fixing sentence for each of the six s 208 offences, sentencing judge entitled to take into consideration that there were eight other offences – whether entitled to consider all offences as part of overall transaction and tailor effective sentence so as to be appropriate punishment for whole episode
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1997 (Qld), s 21
Criminal Code (Qld), s 208
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A
Crofts [1999] 1 Qd R 386, mentioned
Crossley [1999] QCA 223; CA No 477 of 1998, 18 June
1999, mentioned

Dinsdale [2000] HCA 54; 12 October 2000, considered
Fisher (1987) 9 Cr App R (S) 462, considered
Gladstone CA No 26 of 1973, 2 July 1973, considered
H CA No 110 of 1996, 5 June 1996, considered
Kellerman v Pecko [1998] 1 Qd R 419, discussed
Papoulias [1988] VR 858, applied
Patane CA No 246 of 1996, 25 October 1996, followed
R and S, ex parte A-G [1999] QCA 181; CA Nos 390, 391 of
1998, 28 May 1999, mentioned

Smith (1992) 13 Cr App R (S) 247, considered
Tunn CA No 167…

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 Gilles; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Gilles; ex parte [2000] QCA 503
Case: [2000] QCA 503
Decision Date: 12/12/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the respondent against a decision of the Federal Court. The applicant, Gilles, had applied for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to challenge the lawfulness of their detention. The Federal Court had dismissed the application, leading to this appeal. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Federal Court had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions in dismissing the habeas corpus application. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Federal Court's interpretation of the statutory framework governing the detention was correct and whether the applicant's rights under the Constitution had been properly considered.

In examining the case, the court considered the statutory framework and the scope of the Federal Court's jurisdiction in habeas corpus matters. The court found that the Federal Court had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions and had properly applied them to the facts of the case. The court concluded that the Federal Court's reasoning was sound and that the decision to dismiss the habeas corpus application was in accordance with the law. The court also found that the applicant's rights under the Constitution had been adequately considered and that there were no errors in the proceedings that warranted an appeal.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision upheld the Federal Court's ruling, affirming the correctness of its interpretation of the statutory provisions and the lawfulness of the detention. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, leaving the original decision of the Federal Court intact.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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 Gilles; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 503
PARTIES:	R v GILLES, Warwick David (respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 156 of 2000 DC No 2775 of 1999 DC No 1122 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	12 December 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 September 2000
JUDGE:	Pincus, McPherson and Thomas JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal dismissed