R v Jamieson - [2007] QCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Jamieson [2007] QCA 20

PARTIES:

R
v
JAMIESON, Michael James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 119 of 2006
DC No 1425 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

5 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Holmes JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES, SENTENCES ON ESCAPE AND COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE – SENTENCE DURING UNEXPIRED SENTENCE – where sentence of imprisonment imposed after expiration of another term of imprisonment – where applicant remained on remand for other offences after expiration of earlier sentence – whether s 156A(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) required trial judge to order sentence be served cumulatively with earlier sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment – where co-offender pleaded guilty and received a recommendation in relation to parole – where applicant had a significant prior criminal history – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156A

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant was on the 28th of March 2006 following a trial sentenced to seven years imprisonment for armed robbery in company and to a concurrent three-year term for the unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation.

The applicant appealed against his conviction by notice filed 13 April 2006 and in that form deleted reference to any application for leave to appeal against sentence. He abandoned that appeal recently, on the 1st of February 2007.

On 23rd August last year the applicant was granted an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. He attributed his failure to apply within time to lack of understanding of the structure of his sentences and made his application on 15 May 2006, which was only a fortnight out of time. In his material in support of that application, and the current application, the applicant referred to section 156A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and the circumstance that the learned sentencing Judge did not order that the seven-year term imposed in March 2006 be served cumulatively upon some other particular term of imprisonment.

The Crown accepts that section 156A applied but refers to the terms of subsection 2…

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 Jamieson

Details

AGLC: R v Jamieson [2007] QCA 20
Case: [2007] QCA 20
Decision Date: 5 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jamieson involved the applicant who was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the trial judge was required to order the sentence to be served cumulatively with an earlier sentence under s 156A(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court held that the trial judge was not required to order the sentence to be served cumulatively with the earlier sentence, as the applicant remained on remand for other offences after the expiration of the earlier sentence. Furthermore, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as the applicant had a significant prior criminal history and the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles of sentencing and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The court noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence and that the applicant's prior criminal history was a relevant factor in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also considered the need to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and that they reflect the community's values and standards. Ultimately, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant was not entitled to a reduction in sentence.

The final orders of the court were that the application to reduce the sentence was refused. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that there were no grounds for reducing the sentence. The applicant's appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is refused

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 Jamieson [2007] QCA 20
PARTIES:	R v JAMIESON, Michael James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 119 of 2006 DC No 1425 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	5 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2007
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Holmes JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES, SENTENCES ON ESCAPE AND COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE – SENTENCE DURING UNEXPIRED SENTENCE – where sentence of imprisonment imposed after expiration of another term of imprisonment – where applicant remained on remand for other offences after expiration of earlier sentence – whether s 156A(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) required trial judge to order sentence be served cumulatively with earlier sentence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where applicant convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to seven years imprisonment – where co-offender pleaded guilty and received a recommendation in relation to parole – where applicant had a significant prior criminal history – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156A
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent