DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Jones [2019] QDC 79
PARTIES:
THE QUEEN
v
LACHLAN SIDNEY JONES
FILE NO/S:
1750/2018
DIVISION:
Criminal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
11 April 2019, 8 and 17 May 2019
JUDGE:
Smith DCJA
ORDER:
1. The defendant is convicted of each count.
2. On each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 the defendant is fined $2,000.00.
3. The defendant is allowed one month to pay the fines.
4. If the fines are not paid the matter is referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.
5. On count 7 the defendant is sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
6. The sentence of imprisonment is to commence today.
7. I order the defendant be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $1,000.00 conditioned that the defendant be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW- SENTENCE- Appropriate sentence for flying without a licence and making a false document
Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) s 20AB
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) rr 269, 282
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth) r 11.055
Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 135, 144.1
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ss 4AA, 16A, 16BA, 17A, 19B
Evidence Act 1977 (Q) s 132C
Commissioner of Taxation v Baffsky (2001) 122 A Crim R 568
Moreland v Snowden [2007] WASC 1378
R v Barton District Court Queensland 19 November 2010
R v Barton District Court Queensland 20 July 2013
R v Crumpton [2016] NSWCCA 261
R v McCormack District Court New South Wales 17 December 2008
COUNSEL:
Mr J Noud for the crown
Mr J Ribbands for the defendant
SOLICITORS:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the crown
Maitland Lawyers for the defendant
Introduction
The defendant has pleaded guilty to five counts of operating an Australian aircraft without a licence contrary to section 20AB of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth),[1] one count of making a false commonwealth document contrary to section 144.1 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)[2] and I will take into account pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) one count of providing false or misleading information to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) contrary to s 135.1(7) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).[3]
[1]The maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years and/or 120 penalty units ($20,400). At the relevant time a penalty unit was $170 under section 4AA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
[2]The maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years and/or 600 penalty units ($102,000).
[3]The maximum penalty was imprisonment for 5 years and/or 300 penalty units ($51,000).
I take into account the pleas of guilty and reduce the penalties I would have otherwise imposed by reason of the pleas. They show…
Continue reading R v Jones
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Jones [2019] QDC 79
- Case
- [2019] QDC 79
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered several precedents and statutory provisions in reaching its decision. It examined the severity of the offenses, the defendant's criminal history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court highlighted the importance of deterring such conduct due to the significant safety risks involved in operating an aircraft without proper qualifications. The court also noted the defendant's cooperation with authorities and his lack of a prior criminal record as mitigating factors.
After weighing these factors, the court decided that a combination of fines and imprisonment was appropriate. For counts 1 through 5, the defendant was fined $2,000 each, with the option to pay over one month or face referral to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry if unpaid. For count 7, the defendant was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, but this was immediately suspended for two years on the condition of good behavior and a recognizance of $1,000. The defendant was also ordered to be released forthwith.
The final orders of the court mandated that the defendant pay the specified fines within one month or face further action by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry. Failure to pay would trigger the enforcement procedures. The suspended sentence on count 7 was to take effect if the defendant violated the conditions of the recognizance within the two-year period. The defendant was to be of good behavior and refrain from any further criminal activity during this time.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant is convicted of each count.
2. On each of counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 the defendant is fined $2,000.00.
3. The defendant is allowed one month to pay the fines.
4. If the fines are not paid the matter is referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.
5. On count 7 the defendant is sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
6. The sentence of imprisonment is to commence today.
7. I order the defendant be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $1,000.00 conditioned that the defendant be of good behaviour for a period of 2 years.
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.