R v Harrison - [2015] QCA 210

[2015] QCA 210

COURT OF APPEAL

MARGARET McMURDO P
GOTTERSON JA
MORRISON JA

CA No 320 of 2014
SC No 75 of 2014
SC No 76 of 2014

THE QUEEN

HARRISON, Craig James Applicant

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 29 OCTOBER 2015

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant, Craig Harrison, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court at Townsville on 27 November 2014 to 29 counts on an ex officio indictment: three counts of burglary and stealing (counts 1, 17 and 19); six counts of supplying dangerous drugs (counts 2 to 7); two counts of breaking, entering and stealing (counts 8 and 13); two counts of possessing a thing used in the commission of a crime (counts 9 and 20); two counts of unlawful possession of category D, H or R weapons (counts 10 and 11); four counts of possessing dangerous drugs (counts 12, 15, 18 and 28); unlawfully using a motor vehicle with damage (count 14); possessing a dangerous drug exceeding two grams (count 16); unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence (count 21); attempted entering of premises with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 22); two counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle (counts 23 and 25); two counts of fraud (counts 24 and 26); receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation (count 27); and possessing things used in connection with unlawful entry with a circumstance of aggravation (count 29).

He also pleaded guilty to the following summary charges: two counts of failing to properly dispose of needle and syringe; obstructing police; three counts of possessing utensils or pipes used in the commission of an offence; unlawful possession of weapons; possessing explosives/ammunitions; two counts of possessing property suspected of being used in connection with drugs; and possession of a knife in public.

The offences were committed between 26 August 2013 and 12 January 2014. He was 48 years old at the time of the offending and 49 years old when sentenced. The following day he was sentenced to six years imprisonment on each of counts 1, 8, 13, 17 and 19 (the burglary and breaking and entering offences) and to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment on the remaining indictable offences. He was convicted but not further punished on the summary offences. Three hundred and twenty days of pre-sentence custody was deemed time already served under the sentence. As the judge did not set a parole eligibility date, this means the applicant under his present sentence will be eligible for parole after serving 50 per cent of that sentence, that is, after three years: see s 184(2) Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld).

The applicant, who is now self-represented, has asked for leave to appeal and seeks to appeal on two grounds. The first is that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The second is that the sentencing judge failed to appropriately recognise his plea of guilty.

The applicant has a shocking criminal history extending into 20 pages not only in…

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 Harrison

Details

AGLC: R v Harrison [2015] QCA 210
Case: [2015] QCA 210
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Craig James Harrison, sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence in the Supreme Court at Townsville. He pleaded guilty to a range of offences including burglary, drug supply, possession of dangerous drugs, unlawful possession of weapons, and fraud. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the sentencing judge appropriately recognised the applicant's plea of guilty. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive and that the judge failed to adequately consider his guilty plea. The Court found that while the sentence was within the appropriate range, the sentencing judge did not comply with statutory requirements to consider and acknowledge the applicant's guilty plea. This non-compliance meant the sentencing discretion miscarried, necessitating a re-sentencing by the appeal court.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence of six years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the number of offences, the value of property lost, the applicant's criminal history, and his propensity to reoffend. However, the Court decided to reduce the head sentence to five years to reflect the applicant's guilty plea and his history of recidivism. The Court also determined that suspending the sentence after three years would appropriately balance the need for community protection with the applicant's prospects for rehabilitation. The Court therefore allowed the appeal to the extent of varying the sentences on certain counts to five years imprisonment, suspended after three years. The remainder of the sentences were confirmed.

Orders