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 2003DIVISION: 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 madeORDERS: 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
excessivePenalties 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, consideredCOUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
P F Rutledge for the respondentSOLICITORS: 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
- AGLC
- R v Jeffers [2003] QCA 362
- Case
- [2003] QCA 362
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.