R v Greczko - [2001] QCA 221

[2001] QCA 221

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
THOMAS JA
ATKINSON J

CA No 62 of 2001

THE QUEEN

TANIA ELIZABETH GRECZKO (Applicant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 05/06/2001

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Thomas will deliver his reasons first.

THOMAS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to a variety of offences committed between November 1999 and October 2000. Five separate indictments were presented in relation to
14 offences and two further summary matters were also dealt with.

The indictments included seven counts of stealing, two of wilful damage, one of entering a vehicle with intent, one of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, one of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, one of fraud and one of common assault. The summary matters consisted of behaving in a disorderly manner and unauthorised dealing in shop goods.

The operative sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was imposed with respect to assault occasioning bodily harm in company, which was committed on 25 September 2000. Concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment were imposed on counts of wilful damage and assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed, 30 November 1999 and concurrent six months' sentences were imposed in respect of all other matters.

The applicant is 31 years old and has a fairly extensive criminal history, although, with relatively minor exceptions, it was not such as resulted in her being sent to prison for other than short periods. Her record includes many offences of dishonesty.

There has been a poor record of compliance with orders that have been made. Probation and community service orders have been breached. An order of suspended imprisonment failed to discourage her from re-offending. The present offences were committed whilst she was subject to suspended orders of imprisonment that had been made in the Magistrates Court on 19 July 1999 and 13 September 1999. It is clear that with her prolific history of offending and the failure of alternative options, the Court was left in a position where the only appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment.

The circumstances may be briefly stated. The four counts on the first indictment resulted from an argument with a male complainant. The applicant entered his car, took a wheel brace and used it to scratch every panel of the complainant's car, before throwing it at the complainant, striking him on the arm.

The second indictment concerns her stealing a quantity of electrical appliances from Woolworths in January 2000.

The third indictment concerns further shop stealing offences, in which she stole a rug and a video cassette recorder.

The fourth indictment concerns further shop stealing of coffee, moisturising cream and cosmetics in April 2000.

The fifth indictment concerns the shop lifting of 27 items of clothing from Myer at Pacific Fair on 16 August 2000, followed by further shop lifting from Myer at Logan,
24 August, resulting in the taking of $836 worth of property. On 10 September 2000, the applicant obtained accommodation worth $90 by passing a false cheque. Finally, on 25 September 2000, the applicant and a co-offender behaved…

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 Greczko

Details

AGLC: R v Greczko [2001] QCA 221
Case: [2001] QCA 221
Decision Date: 05/06/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Greczko was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, presided over by McMurdo P, Thomas JA, and Atkinson J. The applicant, Tania Elizabeth Greczko, was convicted of multiple offences, including stealing, wilful damage, assault occasioning bodily harm, fraud, and common assault. These offences were committed between November 1999 and October 2000, with Greczko pleading guilty to the charges. The sentencing court imposed various custodial sentences, including an operative sentence of 18 months' imprisonment for assault occasioning bodily harm in company, and concurrent sentences for the other offences. Greczko's appeal against the sentence imposed was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge erred in not recommending parole at an earlier stage. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence was within the appropriate range, having regard to the applicant's extensive criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the fact that previous non-custodial sentences had been ineffective in preventing re-offending. The Court also considered whether the sentencing judge's decision not to recommend parole at an earlier stage rendered the sentence manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence, taking into account the applicant's extensive criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offences, and the fact that previous non-custodial sentences had been ineffective in preventing re-offending. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge's decision not to recommend parole at an earlier stage did not render the sentence manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal against sentence.

The Court of Appeal's decision was that the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the sentence imposed by the sentencing court was upheld. The Court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the sentencing judge had properly exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence. The Court also found that the sentencing judge's decision not to recommend parole at an earlier stage did not render the sentence manifestly excessive.

Orders