R v Holton - [1996] QCA 510

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 510
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 382 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Holton]

THE QUEEN

WAYNE DARCY HOLTON

(Applicant)
Pincus JA
Thomas J
Dowsett J

Judgment delivered 10 December 1996

Separate concurring reasons for judgment of each member of the Court.

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - General sentencing level for burglary - Special aggravating factors - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Observations on R v Joyce [1986] 1 Qd.R. 47.
Pre-sentence custody - Whether "the offender was held in custody in relation to the proceedings for the offence and for no other reason" - s161 Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 - R v. Wishart and Jenkins [1994] 2 Qd.R. 421.
Counsel:	Mr S. Hamlyn-Harris for the Applicant
Mr B.G. Campbell for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Applicant.
Queensland Department of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent.

Hearing Date: 13 November 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS J.A.

Judgment delivered 10 December 1996

I have read the reasons of Thomas J. and agree, substantially for the reasons his Honour gives, that the application should be refused. I particularly agree with what is said in those reasons about Joyce [1986] 1 Qd.R. 47. In recent years at least, Joyce has not been regarded as a decision of much assistance in sentencing for burglary, insofar as it says that the general level of sentencing for burglary should be about 5 years with "substantial increases" for various circumstances; that does not accord with Queensland sentencing practice. Most offences of breaking and entering appear to be committed by young offenders and it is not uncommon for such offences, particular when unaccompanied by any aggravating factors, to attract considerably lighter sentences than Joyce recommends.

Any suggestion that the general level of penalties may ever be driven too high is now quite out of fashion; this has perhaps contributed to the outcome mentioned in the recent 1995/1996 report of the Queensland Corrective Services Commission to the Minister, the Honourable Russell Cooper MLA. The report includes:

"The Commission has continued this year, as it has since 1993, to respond to an unprecedented growth in prisoner numbers. The reasons for this increase are still poorly understood but the impact on correctional service systems, accommodation and staff are obvious." (p. 4)
"Queensland has the dubious distinction of having by far the fastest growing imprisonment rate in Australia. Since the 1992/93 financial year, Queensland’s imprisonment rate has grown from 89 per 100,000 of adult population to 124. To illustrate the seriousness of this costly statistic, the imprisonment rate of Victoria is only 70 per 100,000 of adult population and has been around this figure for many years." (P. 6).

All that having been said, I have been unable to reach the conclusion that the sentence imposed in the present case was manifestly excessive. At first sight it seems high, but the circumstances attending the commission of the offence as set out…

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 Holton

Details

AGLC: R v Holton [1996] QCA 510
Case: [1996] QCA 510
Decision Date: 10/12/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Holton, the appellant, who was the defendant in the underlying criminal proceeding, was convicted of burglary. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the appellant. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence and whether it was manifestly excessive, taking into account the general sentencing principles for burglary and any special aggravating factors present in the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive, considering the general sentencing level for burglary and any special aggravating factors. The appellant argued that the sentence was too severe, while the prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's criminal history. The court was required to consider the relevant authorities and principles, including the decision in R v Joyce, to determine the appropriate sentence.

The court examined the principles of general sentencing for burglary, which involve consideration of the seriousness of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court also considered any special aggravating factors present in the case, such as the appellant's criminal history and the circumstances of the burglary. The court noted that the sentence imposed on the appellant was within the range of sentences typically imposed for burglary, and that there were no special aggravating factors that warranted a more severe sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence imposed by the lower court.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond upholding the original sentence.

Orders