R v Lacey - [2013] QCA 318

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lacey [2013] QCA 318

PARTIES:

R
v
LACEY, Jade Michael

FILE NO/S:

CA No 78 of 2013
SC No 123 of 2013
SC No 124 of 2013
SC No 134 of 2013
SC No 308 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 October 2013

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to seven indictable offences – where the applicant was already serving an effective period of 13 years imprisonment taking into account earlier presentence custody which was unable to be declared as time already served – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five years for trafficking and 15 months imprisonment for assault – where the applicant was also sentenced to two years imprisonment for each count of armed robbery to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentences which the applicant was serving – where the applicant contended that the sentence was rendered manifestly excessive by the imposition of the cumulative imprisonment for the armed robbery counts and thereby offended the totality principle – whether the sentence imposed offended the totality principle – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant argued that the sentence imposed on the armed robbery counts was not in parity with the sentence imposed upon Dionne Lacey – where the sentencing judge nevertheless considered that the same sentences should be imposed on the applicant having regard to various circumstances – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in comparison

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited
R v Baker[2011] QCA 104, cited
R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245, cited
R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292, considered
R v Lacey & Lacey[2011] QCA 386, related
R v Lacey; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, related

COUNSEL:

J Fraser for the applicant (pro bono)
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: On 19 March 2013 the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of seven indictable offences:

(a) Trafficking in dangerous drugs (“ecstasy”, cocaine and cannabis) between 4 June 2006 and 28 May 2007.

(b) Possession of things (mobile telephones) for use in connection…

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 Lacey

Details

AGLC: R v Lacey [2013] QCA 318
Case: [2013] QCA 318
Decision Date: 25 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lacey involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to seven indictable offences, appealing against the sentence imposed by the court. The applicant was already serving a sentence of 13 years imprisonment, which included time already served, and was sentenced to additional terms for trafficking, assault, and armed robbery. The applicant contested the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive and did not adhere to the totality principle, particularly in relation to the cumulative sentencing for the armed robbery counts. Additionally, the applicant argued that the sentence was not in parity with the sentence imposed on a co-offender, Dionne Lacey.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it contravened the totality principle by imposing cumulative sentences for the armed robbery counts. The applicant also argued that the sentence did not reflect parity with the sentence of the co-offender. The court had to consider these issues in light of the sentencing principles and the circumstances of the case.

The court reviewed the sentencing principles and the circumstances surrounding the offences. It determined that the sentences were within the appropriate range for the offences committed and did not render the overall sentence manifestly excessive. The court also found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances and had acted within their discretion in imposing the sentences. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and did not contravene the totality principle or parity with the co-offender's sentence.

The court dismissed the application, upholding the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge. The applicant's appeal against the sentence was therefore refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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 Lacey [2013] QCA 318
PARTIES:	R v LACEY, Jade Michael
FILE NO/S:	CA No 78 of 2013 SC No 123 of 2013 SC No 124 of 2013 SC No 134 of 2013 SC No 308 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 October 2013
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to seven indictable offences – where the applicant was already serving an effective period of 13 years imprisonment taking into account earlier presentence custody which was unable to be declared as time already served – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five years for trafficking and 15 months imprisonment for assault – where the applicant was also sentenced to two years imprisonment for each count of armed robbery to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentences which the applicant was serving – where the applicant contended that the sentence was rendered manifestly excessive by the imposition of the cumulative imprisonment for the armed robbery counts and thereby offended the totality principle – whether the sentence imposed offended the totality principle – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where the applicant argued that the sentence imposed on the armed robbery counts was not in parity with the sentence imposed upon Dionne Lacey – where the sentencing judge nevertheless considered that the same sentences should be imposed on the applicant having regard to various circumstances – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in comparison Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited R v Baker[2011] QCA 104, cited R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245, cited R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292, considered R v Lacey & Lacey[2011] QCA 386, related R v Lacey; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2009) 197 A Crim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, related
COUNSEL:	J Fraser for the applicant (pro bono) G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Howden Saggers Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent