R v Katia; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2006] QCA 300

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Katia; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 300
PARTIES: R
v
KATIA, Moses Rupert
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 111 of 2006 SC No 989 of 2005
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON: 22 August 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 3 August 2006
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing deceased, robbing him with personal violence and stealing his shoes and mobile phone - where respondent's effective total sentence was eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after three years - where Attorney-General contends that sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate - where respondent and co-offender had been drinking heavily before they stole shoes and mobile phone from deceased who was also heavily intoxicated - where respondent returned to strike deceased and steal from him again - whether Attorney-General must demonstrate error on the part of the primary court - whether respondent's sentence was within appropriate range in all the circumstances
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 669A
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, applied
R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, distinguished
R v Duncombe [2005] QCA 142; CA No 410 of 2004, 6 May
2005, explained
R v George; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 450; CA No
316 of 2004, 26 November 2004, cited
R v Liekefett; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1973] Qd R 355, applied R v Melano; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1995] 2 Qd R 186, applied R v Stepto [2002] QCA 10; CA No 220 of 2001, 4 February
2002, distinguished
Weiss v The Queen (2005) 80 ALJR 444, applied York v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1919, applied

COUNSEL: M J Copley for appellant
R A Mulholland QC for respondent
SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant
Gilshenan & Luton for respondent

McMURDO P: The respondent Moses Katia pleaded guilty on 31 March 2006 to unlawfully killing Paul Bernard Markham, to robbing him with personal violence and to stealing his shoes and mobile phone. He was sentenced for manslaughter to eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release eligibility after three years and to lesser concurrent sentences on the other counts. The appellant, the Attorney-General of Queensland, appeals under s 669A Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) contending that this Court should substitute a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.
Katia was 18 at the time of the offences and 19 at sentence. He was born in…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Katia; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QCA 300
Decision Date: 22/08/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing a deceased individual, robbing him with personal violence, and stealing his shoes and mobile phone. The respondent's effective total sentence was eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after three years. The Attorney-General contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, given the circumstances of the offence.

The legal issues that the court had to determine were whether the Attorney-General must demonstrate an error on the part of the primary court and whether the respondent's sentence was within the appropriate range in all the circumstances. The court had to consider the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it, including the fact that the respondent and co-offender had been drinking heavily before they stole the shoes and mobile phone from the deceased who was also heavily intoxicated. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the respondent's return to strike the deceased and steal from him again warranted a harsher sentence.

The court found that the Attorney-General did not need to demonstrate an error on the part of the primary court. The court also found that the respondent's sentence was within the appropriate range in all the circumstances. The court considered the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding it, and the fact that the respondent had pleaded guilty and expressed remorse. The court found that the sentence was sufficient to achieve the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against sentence dismissed

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 Katia; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 300
PARTIES:	R v KATIA, Moses Rupert (respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 111 of 2006 SC No 989 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	22 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER - APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON - where respondent pleaded guilty to unlawfully killing deceased, robbing him with personal violence and stealing his shoes and mobile phone - where respondent's effective total sentence was eight years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after three years - where Attorney-General contends that sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate - where respondent and co-offender had been drinking heavily before they stole shoes and mobile phone from deceased who was also heavily intoxicated - where respondent returned to strike deceased and steal from him again - whether Attorney-General must demonstrate error on the part of the primary court - whether respondent's sentence was within appropriate range in all the circumstances
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 669A
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321, applied R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, distinguished R v Duncombe [2005] QCA 142; CA No 410 of 2004, 6 May

COUNSEL:	M J Copley for appellant R A Mulholland QC for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant Gilshenan & Luton for respondent