R v Jeffers

Case [2003] QCA 362


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v Jeffers [2003] QCA 362
PARTIES:  R
v
JEFFERS, Darren Christopher
(applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 231 of 2003
DC No 1236 of 2003
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Sentence Application
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX  25 August 2003
TEMPORE ON: 
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  25 August 2003
JUDGES:  McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:  Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance on counts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 substitute a sentence of ten years imprisonment. Instead of the declaration under s 161 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), declare that 288 days has been spent in presentence custody between
28 August 2002 until 12 June 2003 and that that time be
deemed time already served under the sentence.
CATCHWORDS:  CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT –
SENTENCE – PARITY - CO-OFFENDERS – where
applicant sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for robbery
offences and lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for
property and assault charges – whether sentence fails to
sufficiently take into account early plea of guilty and
cooperation with authorities – whether sentence imposed
upon co-offender lacked parity - whether sentence manifestly
excessive
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161
R v Haluzan [2002] QCA 94; CA No 339 of 2001, 15 March
2002, considered
R v Kapitano [2002] QCA 496; CA No 196 of 2002, 11
November 2002, considered
R v Tilley; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 144; CA No 27 of
2002, 19 April 2002, considered
COUNSEL:  The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P F Rutledge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 12 June 2003 to two counts of armed robbery, four counts of armed robbery in company, one count of attempted armed robbery in company, two counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle to facilitate an offence, one count of serious assault, three counts of break, enter and steal, and one count of possession of a shotgun.

He was sentenced on the robbery offences to eleven years imprisonment and to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment for the remaining charges. He was declared to be convicted of serious violent offences in respect of the robbery charges and a declaration was made as to the time served under the sentence under s 161 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). I'll have more to say about that declaration later in these reasons.

The applicant, who represents himself on this application for leave to appeal against sentence, contends that it was manifestly excessive in that it fails sufficiently to take into account his early guilty plea and cooperation and lacked parity with the sentence imposed upon his co-accused, Johnson.

The applicant was 36…

Continue reading R v Jeffers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Jeffers [2003] QCA 362
Case
[2003] QCA 362
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jeffers involved the appellant, who was convicted and sentenced on various counts, including serious offences. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. The central issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether it complied with the principle of parity, particularly in relation to the sentences of co-offenders. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was just and whether the principles of sentencing, including parity and the treatment of co-offenders, were properly applied.

The court reviewed the principles of sentencing and the appropriate application of the principle of parity. It examined whether the appellant's sentence was commensurate with those of co-offenders and whether there were any significant mitigating or aggravating factors that warranted a different sentence. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately consider the principle of parity and did not provide sufficient justification for the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offenders. It was determined that the original sentence did not appropriately reflect the seriousness of the crimes committed and the appellant's role within them.

The court allowed the appeal and substituted the original sentence with a new sentence of ten years imprisonment. This decision was based on the court's determination that the original sentence did not comply with the principle of parity and did not appropriately reflect the appellant's culpability and the gravity of the crimes. The court also made a declaration under section 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) regarding the time spent in presentence custody. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that sentences are fair, just, and in accordance with the principles of sentencing law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance on counts 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8 substitute a sentence of ten years imprisonment. Instead of the declaration under s 161 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), declare that 288 days has been spent in presentence custody between

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.