R v Horsfall - [2024] QCA 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Horsfall [2024] QCA 144

PARTIES:

R
v
HORSFALL, Andrew Justin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 196 of 2022
SC No 1132 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 August 2022 (Brown J)

DELIVERED ON:

9 August 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2024

JUDGES:

Mullins P and Boddice JA and Crowley J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced for 45 Commonwealth “child sex offences” – where a global penalty was imposed on one count to reflect the totality of the applicant’s criminality – where the offending period was relatively short but of a high level of intensity – where the offending was of at least moderate severity – where the applicant cooperated with police – where the sentencing judge did not find there was any evidence of remorse beyond the applicant’s plea of guilty – where the applicant lacked insight into the gravity of his offending – where the applicant raised post-sentence conduct or matters known at the time of sentencing but were not relied upon by the applicant – whether the applicant’s personal circumstances were given sufficient weight by the sentencing judge – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt 1B

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v CCQ[2021] QCA 4, considered
Lyons v R [2017] NSWCCA 204, distinguished
R v Dowd, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Ryan J, SC No 1369 of 2017, 8 May 2018, distinguished
R v Hughes [2004] 1 Qd R 541; [2003] QCA 460, cited
R v KAT[2018] QCA 306, distinguished
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M F Bonasia for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondents

MULLINS P: I agree with Crowley J.
BODDICE JA: I agree with Crowley J.
CROWLEY J: On 26 August 2022, the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment in respect of 45 “child sex offences” under the Criminal Code (Cth). A single non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months was fixed.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal his sentence. The sole ground of appeal contained in his application is that the sentence is manifestly excessive.
The details of the particular offences for which the applicant was sentenced are:

Offence	Maximum Penalty[1]
Count 1: Using a carriage service to groom a person believed to be under 16 years of age to engage in sexual activity – s 474.27(1) Criminal Code	12 years’ imprisonment
Count 2: Using a carriage service to transmit an indecent communication…

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 Horsfall

Details

AGLC: R v Horsfall [2024] QCA 144
Case: [2024] QCA 144
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the applicant, identified as Horsfall, who sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by a lower court. The nature of the dispute was the applicant’s contention that the sentence was manifestly excessive and, as such, he sought to challenge the severity of the punishment through an appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Horsfall by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive, thereby justifying an appeal. This required the court to examine the grounds upon which the applicant based his claim of manifest excess and determine whether these grounds were sufficient to warrant further judicial review.

In evaluating the applicant's claims, the court considered the arguments presented regarding the sentence's severity and any additional matters raised by the applicant. The court found that none of the applicant's complaints, whether considered individually or collectively, demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court determined that the applicant had not provided any compelling reason to address the additional matters beyond his primary complaint of manifest excess. Consequently, the court concluded that none of the applicant’s grievances were tenable.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal was refused, thereby upholding the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The decision affirmed that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the applicant's grounds for appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The applicant did not identify any reason why any of the matters that went beyond his complaint of manifest excess should be considered by the Court at the hearing of his application for leave to appeal his sentence. Accordingly, in my view, it is neither appropriate nor necessary for any of these matters to be further addressed. For present purposes, it is sufficient to simply say that none of the further matters raised by the applicant, either individually or collectively, were capable of demonstrating that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive.Conclusion and orders In my view, none of the applicant’s complaints are tenable. Accordingly, I would order:1. The application for leave to appeal is refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Horsfall [2024] QCA 144
PARTIES:	R v HORSFALL, Andrew Justin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 196 of 2022 SC No 1132 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 August 2022 (Brown J)
DELIVERED ON:	9 August 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 July 2024
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Boddice JA and Crowley J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced for 45 Commonwealth “child sex offences” – where a global penalty was imposed on one count to reflect the totality of the applicant’s criminality – where the offending period was relatively short but of a high level of intensity – where the offending was of at least moderate severity – where the applicant cooperated with police – where the sentencing judge did not find there was any evidence of remorse beyond the applicant’s plea of guilty – where the applicant lacked insight into the gravity of his offending – where the applicant raised post-sentence conduct or matters known at the time of sentencing but were not relied upon by the applicant – whether the applicant’s personal circumstances were given sufficient weight by the sentencing judge – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt 1B Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v CCQ[2021] QCA 4, considered Lyons v R [2017] NSWCCA 204, distinguished R v Dowd, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Ryan J, SC No 1369 of 2017, 8 May 2018, distinguished R v Hughes [2004] 1 Qd R 541; [2003] QCA 460, cited R v KAT[2018] QCA 306, distinguished R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593; [1996] QCA 242, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M F Bonasia for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondents