R v Knight - [2013] QCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Knight [2013] QCA 277

PARTIES:

R
v
KNIGHT, Rodney Edward
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 90 of 2013
DC No 7 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

27 September 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 August 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Sentence varied only to the extent of directing that the federal sentence commences on 9 October 2016.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant was serving a term of imprisonment for State offences at the time he was sentenced for federal offences –where the federal offences were six counts of procuring another person to obtain a financial advantage by deception and two counts of attempting the same – where applicant’s sentence was governed by s 19(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – where the sentences for the federal offences were ordered to commence upon expiration of applicant’s incarceration for the sentences imposed for the State offences – where applicant’s full time release date under the State offences was 9 October 2017 and parole eligibility date had already passed – where applicant argued that there was an ambiguity in the expression of the sentencing judge of the commencement date of the sentence – where the expression “expiration of incarceration” could either mean the full time release date or the date of a grant of parole if that were to occur – whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of the sentencing discretion as to the direction regarding when the federal sentence commenced

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 194(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188

R v Dobie [2004] 2 Qd R 537, [2004] QCA 140, cited

COUNSEL:

J McInnes for the applicant/appellant
D T Murphy (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons and proposed orders of Atkinson J.

FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Atkinson J. I agree with those reasons and with the orders proposed by her Honour.

ATKINSON J: The applicant, Rodney Edward Knight, was in prison serving a term of imprisonment for State offences when he committed six counts of procuring another person to obtain a financial advantage by deception and two counts of attempting the same ("the federal offences"). Those offences occurred when he caused the lodgement of false income tax returns in his name and the names of other prisoners which resulted in funds being paid by the Commonwealth into his or his ex-girlfriend's bank account. The monies were…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2013] QCA 277
Case: [2013] QCA 277
Decision Date: 27 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Knight, the applicant appealed against his sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The applicant was serving a term of imprisonment for State offences when he was sentenced for six counts of procuring another person to obtain a financial advantage by deception and two counts of attempting the same, under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The sentencing judge ordered that the sentences for the federal offences commence upon the expiration of the applicant's incarceration for the sentences imposed for the State offences. The applicant's full time release date under the State offences was 9 October 2017, and his parole eligibility date had already passed. The applicant argued that there was an ambiguity in the expression of the sentencing judge regarding the commencement date of the sentence, contending that the expression "expiration of incarceration" could either mean the full time release date or the date of a grant of parole if that were to occur.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of the sentencing discretion as to the direction regarding when the federal sentence commenced. The court considered the applicant's argument that there was an ambiguity in the expression of the sentencing judge regarding the commencement date of the sentence. The court found that there was indeed an ambiguity in the expression of the sentencing judge and that the applicant's argument was well-founded. The court further found that the sentencing judge had exercised the sentencing discretion in a manner that was not in accordance with the law. The court granted the applicant's application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal.

The court varied the sentence only to the extent of directing that the federal sentence commences on 9 October 2016. The court held that the sentencing judge had erred in the exercise of the sentencing discretion by not specifying the exact date when the federal sentence was to commence. The court concluded that the ambiguity in the expression of the sentencing judge had resulted in the applicant being incarcerated for an additional period beyond what was intended by the sentencing judge. The court's final orders were to grant the applicant's application for leave to appeal, allow the appeal, and vary the sentence only to the extent of directing that the federal sentence commences on 9 October 2016.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. Sentence varied only to the extent of directing that the federal sentence commences on 9 October 2016.

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 Knight [2013] QCA 277
PARTIES:	R v KNIGHT, Rodney Edward (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 90 of 2013 DC No 7 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	27 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 August 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. Sentence varied only to the extent of directing that the federal sentence commences on 9 October 2016.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where applicant was serving a term of imprisonment for State offences at the time he was sentenced for federal offences –where the federal offences were six counts of procuring another person to obtain a financial advantage by deception and two counts of attempting the same – where applicant’s sentence was governed by s 19(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – where the sentences for the federal offences were ordered to commence upon expiration of applicant’s incarceration for the sentences imposed for the State offences – where applicant’s full time release date under the State offences was 9 October 2017 and parole eligibility date had already passed – where applicant argued that there was an ambiguity in the expression of the sentencing judge of the commencement date of the sentence – where the expression “expiration of incarceration” could either mean the full time release date or the date of a grant of parole if that were to occur – whether the sentencing judge erred in the exercise of the sentencing discretion as to the direction regarding when the federal sentence commenced Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 194(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188 R v Dobie [2004] 2 Qd R 537, [2004] QCA 140, cited
COUNSEL:	J McInnes for the applicant/appellant D T Murphy (sol) for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent