R v Knox - [2017] QCA 74

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Knox [2017] QCA 74

PARTIES:

R
v
KNOX, Wade Stanley
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 327 of 2016
DC No 85 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Hervey Bay – Date of Sentence: 17 November 2016

DELIVERED ON:

28 April 2017
Further orders delivered 5 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 April 2017

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

1.   That leave to appeal is granted;

2.   That the appeal is allowed;

3.   That the sentence imposed on count 2 on the indictment is set aside only to the extent that he be sentenced on count 2 to four years imprisonment to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months.

Further orders delivered 5 May 2017:

1.   That leave to appeal is granted;

2.   That the appeal is allowed;

3.   The orders made on 17 November 2016 are aside only to this extent:

a.   On count 2, the appellant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months;

b.   On counts 1 and 6, the appellant be eligible for parole immediately;

4.   Otherwise, the original orders are confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of armed robbery in company, one count of receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of robbery in company – where separate sentences were imposed in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed on both co-offenders in respect of the armed robbery in company – where the applicant submitted the primary judge failed to account for his lesser role in the offending – whether the sentencing judge erred in sentencing both co-offenders to the same head sentence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of armed robbery in company, one count of receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of robbery in company – where separate sentences were imposed in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed on both co-offenders in respect of the armed robbery in company – where the applicant submits that a head sentence of four years’ imprisonment ought to have been imposed – where the applicant alleges the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the applicant’s…

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 Knox

Details

AGLC: R v Knox [2017] QCA 74
Case: [2017] QCA 74
Decision Date: 28 April 2017 Further orders delivered 5 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Knox, appealed against the sentence imposed by the primary judge in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Knox pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including armed robbery, robbery in company with personal violence, receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. The appellant challenged the sentencing judge's decision to impose a five-year head sentence for the armed robbery charge, arguing that the judge failed to account for his lesser role in the offence and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant also contended that the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect understanding of his criminal history. The appeal was concerned with whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing the same head sentence on both co-offenders and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing the same head sentence on both co-offenders and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the sentencing judge considered the role of the appellant in the offence and the disparity between the sentences imposed on the co-offenders. However, the court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the appellant's lesser role in the offending and the disparity between the sentences imposed on the co-offenders. The court also found that the appellant's criminal history was not as extensive as the sentencing judge believed, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed on count 2 was set aside to the extent that the appellant be sentenced to four years imprisonment, to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months. The court noted that the appellant's lesser role in the offending and the disparity between the sentences imposed on the co-offenders warranted a reduction in the head sentence. The court also noted that the appellant's criminal history was not as extensive as the sentencing judge believed, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant was granted leave to appeal and the appeal was allowed in part. The sentence imposed on count 2 was set aside, and the appellant was sentenced to four years imprisonment, to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months. The original orders were confirmed in all other respects.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That leave to appeal is granted;

2. That the appeal is allowed;

3. That the sentence imposed on count 2 on the indictment is set aside only to the extent that he be sentenced on count 2 to four years imprisonment to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months.

Further orders delivered 5 May 2017:

1. That leave to appeal is granted;

2. That the appeal is allowed;

3. The orders made on 17 November 2016 are aside only to this extent:

a. On count 2, the appellant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months;

b. On counts 1 and 6, the appellant be eligible for parole immediately;

4. Otherwise, the original orders are confirmed.

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 Knox [2017] QCA 74
PARTIES:	R v KNOX, Wade Stanley (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 327 of 2016 DC No 85 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Hervey Bay – Date of Sentence: 17 November 2016
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2017 Further orders delivered 5 May 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 April 2017
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. That leave to appeal is granted; 2. That the appeal is allowed; 3. That the sentence imposed on count 2 on the indictment is set aside only to the extent that he be sentenced on count 2 to four years imprisonment to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months. Further orders delivered 5 May 2017: 1. That leave to appeal is granted; 2. That the appeal is allowed; 3. The orders made on 17 November 2016 are aside only to this extent: a. On count 2, the appellant is sentenced to 4 years imprisonment to be eligible for parole immediately, that is after having served one-third of his sentence, 16 months; b. On counts 1 and 6, the appellant be eligible for parole immediately; 4. Otherwise, the original orders are confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of armed robbery in company, one count of receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of robbery in company – where separate sentences were imposed in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed on both co-offenders in respect of the armed robbery in company – where the applicant submitted the primary judge failed to account for his lesser role in the offending – whether the sentencing judge erred in sentencing both co-offenders to the same head sentence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery in company with personal violence, one count of armed robbery in company, one count of receiving stolen property with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of robbery in company – where separate sentences were imposed in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed on both co-offenders in respect of the armed robbery in company – where the applicant submits that a head sentence of four years’ imprisonment ought to have been imposed – where the applicant alleges the sentencing judge proceeded on an incorrect understanding of the applicant’s…