R v Jones - [2024] QDC 144

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:
R v Jones [2024] QDC 144

THE QUEEN

(applicant)
v
ALEXANDER RALSTON JONES

(applicant) 1705/23

Criminal

Sentence reopening

District Court at Brisbane 30 May 2024

Brisbane

PARTIES:

FILENO:

DIVISION:

PROCEEDING:

ORIGINATING COURT:

DELIVEREDON:

DELIVEREDAT:

HEARINGDATE: 13 April 2024, 30 May 2024

JUDGE: Clare SC DCJ

ORDER:
1. The application to reopen the sentence is allowed.

2. The order for 200 hours community service is set aside, and imprisonment for 16 months wholly suspended for an operational period of 16 months substituted.

3. The fine of $15,000 is affirmed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – INFORMERS – REOPENING SENTENCE – informer’s

discount – where a partial failure to cooperate with undertaking to give truthful evidence in the prosecution of co offenders pursuant to s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 – whether discount for future cooperation was earned – whether sentence should be reopened and a greater sentence imposed – where community service performed –– GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE

LEGISLATION:

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 13 A and 188(2) and (4)

CASES:
R v Dehghani; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 159

R v Gladkowski [2000] QCA 352 at [12]
Director of Public Prosecutions v S [no 2] [2009] VSCA 127, [19]

Hodges v R (1997) 95 A Crim R 85 at 95.

COUNSEL:
Mr G Cummings for the applicant

Mr M Copley KC and Mr N Boyd for the respondent, then Mr D Boddice for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Q) for the applicant Cridland and Hua for the respondent, then McGuiness and Associates for the respondent

Introduction

The Director of Public Prosecutions applies to reopen the sentence.

On 5 September 2023, the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of dishonestly obtaining a pecuniary benefit for himself of a value of $30,000 or more. He gave an undertaking to testify in the prosecution of Michael Bosscher in accordance with his sworn statement. His sentence was reduced to reflect the future cooperation pursuant to s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (‘the Act’). He was ordered to perform 200 hours of unpaid community service and to pay a fine of $15,000. But for the undertaking, a term of imprisonment for 2 years, wholly suspended for 2 years, would have been imposed instead of the community service component of the sentence.
A few months later the respondent did testify in the Bosscher trial. He gave contradictory answers.
The application to reopen was brought under s 188 (2) of the Act for a partial failure to cooperate in accordance with the undertaking.

The submissions

The prosecutor, Mr Cummings, argued that the respondent had deliberately changed his evidence to subvert the prosecution case and did not earn the reduced sentence. Mr Copley KC (as His Honour then was), contended that the respondent had substantially earned the benefit and should retain it; he had corrected the main inconsistency before cross examination, and…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2024] QDC 144
Case: [2024] QDC 144
Decision Date: 30 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jones, the defendant appealed against his sentence on the basis that the original sentence was insufficient given the nature of his criminal conduct and the partial failure of an informer to cooperate as promised. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal centred on the circumstances under which the informer's cooperation discount was granted and whether the failure to fully cooperate warranted a reopening of the sentence to impose a harsher penalty.

The court was required to determine whether the informer's partial cooperation was sufficient to earn the discount that was applied to the defendant's sentence. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the partial failure to cooperate constituted a significant enough deviation to warrant a reopening of the sentence and the imposition of a more severe punishment. The court considered the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the defendant's crime, the extent of the informer's cooperation, and the impact of the community service already performed.

The Supreme Court found that the informer's partial failure to cooperate was substantial enough to warrant a reconsideration of the sentence. The court determined that the discount provided for the informer's cooperation was not fully earned due to the significant shortcomings in their testimony. Consequently, the court allowed the application to reopen the sentence. The original order for 200 hours of community service was set aside, and a sentence of imprisonment for 16 months, wholly suspended for an operational period of 16 months, was substituted in its place. The court affirmed the original fine of $15,000.

The final orders of the court were that the application to reopen the sentence was allowed, the order for community service was set aside and replaced with a suspended imprisonment sentence, and the fine remained unchanged.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to reopen the sentence is allowed.

2. The order for 200 hours community service is set aside, and imprisonment for 16 months wholly suspended for an operational period of 16 months substituted.

3. The fine of $15,000 is affirmed.

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 Jones [2024] QDC 144 THE QUEEN (applicant) v ALEXANDER RALSTON JONES (applicant) 1705/23 Criminal Sentence reopening District Court at Brisbane 30 May 2024 Brisbane
PARTIES:
FILENO:
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
ORIGINATING COURT:
DELIVEREDON:
DELIVEREDAT:
HEARINGDATE:	13 April 2024, 30 May 2024
JUDGE:	Clare SC DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application to reopen the sentence is allowed. 2. The order for 200 hours community service is set aside, and imprisonment for 16 months wholly suspended for an operational period of 16 months substituted. 3. The fine of $15,000 is affirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – INFORMERS – REOPENING SENTENCE – informer’s discount – where a partial failure to cooperate with undertaking to give truthful evidence in the prosecution of co offenders pursuant to s 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 – whether discount for future cooperation was earned – whether sentence should be reopened and a greater sentence imposed – where community service performed –– GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE
LEGISLATION:	Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 13 A and 188(2) and (4)
CASES:	R v Dehghani; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 159 R v Gladkowski [2000] QCA 352 at [12] Director of Public Prosecutions v S [no 2] [2009] VSCA 127, [19] Hodges v R (1997) 95 A Crim R 85 at 95.