Legal Research
Cases
R v Lacey

R v Lacey

Case [2013] QCA 292 4 October 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292

PARTIES:

R
v
LACEY, Dionne Matthew
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 203 of 2012
SC No 221 of 2012
SC No 308 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 March 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Margaret Wilson and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret Wilson and Douglas JJ concurring as to the order made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 trafficking in a dangerous drug (Ind 308/11, count 1); possessing a thing for use in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug (Ind 308/11, count 2); possessing property obtained from trafficking (Ind 308/11, count 3); three counts of possessing a dangerous drug (Ind 308/11, counts 4 to 6); and three counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence (Ind 221/12, counts 1 to 3) – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count of armed robbery, to be served concurrently with each other, but cumulatively with the effective term of 18 years imprisonment (with parole eligibility after 12.8 years) that the applicant was serving at the time for previous offences including manslaughter and torture – where the applicant contends that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences, thereby altering his full time release date and the date of his earliest possible release – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive

Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld), Sch 1
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, Pt 9A

Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered
Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55, cited
R v Barry[2011] QCA 119, cited
R v Bird and Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394; [2000] QCA 94, cited
R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245, considered
R v Dinaro (1997) 97 A Crim R 137; [1997] QCA 358, cited
R v Dionne Matthew Lacey and Jade Michael Lacey, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, No 920 of 2008, Martin J, 13 May 2009, related
R v Hess[2003] QCA 553, cited
R v Jade Michael Lacey, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Ind No 308 of 2011, de Jersey CJ, 19 March 2013, cited
R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686, cited
R v Lacey & Lacey[2011]…

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 292
Case: [2013] QCA 292
Decision Date: 4 October 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lacey involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to a range of serious offences, including trafficking in a dangerous drug, possessing a thing for use in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug, possessing property obtained from trafficking, and multiple counts of possessing a dangerous drug. Additionally, the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence. The applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count of armed robbery, to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively with the effective term of 18 years imprisonment that the applicant was already serving for previous offences including manslaughter and torture. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences, which altered his full time release date and the date of his earliest possible release. Furthermore, the applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the cumulative sentence was unjust and that the overall sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed. The court was tasked with assessing the appropriateness of the sentence and determining if there was any error in the judge's approach to sentencing.

In considering these issues, the court examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and the protection of society. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had exercised proper judicial discretion in imposing the sentence. The court concluded that there was no error in the judge's decision to impose a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences, and that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court rejected the applicant's contentions and dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292

Most Recent Citation

R v Lacey [2013] QCA 318

Cases citing this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v ABL
[2024] QCA 110 Para 1

…just and appropriate in all the circumstances, referring to R v Lacey .[107] His Honour also referred to R v Degn [108] and R v Leighton .[109] [107][2013] QCA 292. [108][2021] QCA 33. [109][2014] QCA 169.…
R v Kendrick
[2015] QCA 27 Para 11

…sition of cumulative penalties.’” [66] R v Lacey [2013] QCA 318 ( Lacey ). [67] Lacey at [55]-[57] referring to Wilson J in R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292 at [55]-[57].…
R v Beasley
[2013] QCA 322 Para 1

…ence is “not disproportionate to the offender’s overall criminality and that it does not stifle prospects of rehabilitation”: R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292 at [55]-[56] (Wilson J, Douglas J agreeing). The applicant also cited R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517, in which Street CJ, Moffitt P and Nagle CJ at CL agreeing, made…
R v Lacey
[2013] QCA 318 Para 1

…or a “serious violent offence”. The applicant’s brother Dionne Lacey was given the same effective sentence for his related offending: R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292. The impact of the sentences upon the applicant was that the 13 years pre-existing imprisonment was extended by two years, to expire on 11 May 2022, and th…

View all 4 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 17 of 17 shown

R v Prendergast
[2012] QCA 164 Para 1

…v Hess .[11] The robbery convictions warranted declarations that they were convictions of serious violent offences: R v McDougall and Collas .[12] [8][2012] QCA 164. [9][2009] QCA 129. [10][2008] QCA 201. [11][2003] QCA 553. [12][2007] 2 Qd R 87.…
R v Lacey & Lacey
[2011] QCA 386 Para 1

…r manslaughter. The circumstances of that offending are set out in R v Lacey and Lacey [5] and in the transcript of the trial judge's sentence.[6] [5][2011] QCA 386. [6] R v Lacey and Lacey [2010] QDC 344.…
R v Barry
[2011] QCA 119 Para 1

…t that the applicant will not be additionally punished for serious violent criminal conduct. [20][1991] 2 Qd R 686, 702. [21][1997] QCA 358, 9. [22][2011] QCA 119, [14]-[16]. I am uncertain why her Honour emphasised that the delay in sentencing was caused by the applicant rather than the prosecution and that this…
Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld)
[2011] HCA 10

…egulation 1987 (Qld), Sch 1 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, Pt 9A Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55, cited R v Barry [2011] QCA 119, cited R v Bird a…
R v Lacey and Lacey
[2010] QDC 344 Para 1

…t offending are set out in R v Lacey and Lacey [5] and in the transcript of the trial judge's sentence.[6] [5][2011] QCA 386. [6] R v Lacey and Lacey [2010] QDC 344.…
R v Lacey; ex parte Attorney-General
[2009] QCA 274 Para 1

…y 2007. The circumstances of that offence are set out in R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1] and in the transcript of the trial judge's sentence.[2] [1][2009] QCA 274, [1], [5]-[26]. [2] R v Dionne Matthew Lacey and Jade Michael Lacey , unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, No 920 of 2008, Martin J, 13 May 2009.…
R v Nolan
[2009] QCA 129 Para 1

…bbery convictions warranted declarations that they were convictions of serious violent offences: R v McDougall and Collas .[12] [8][2012] QCA 164. [9][2009] QCA 129. [10][2008] QCA 201. [11][2003] QCA 553. [12][2007] 2 Qd R 87.…
R v Leu; R v Togia
[2008] QCA 201 Para 1

…rranted declarations that they were convictions of serious violent offences: R v McDougall and Collas .[12] [8][2012] QCA 164. [9][2009] QCA 129. [10][2008] QCA 201. [11][2003] QCA 553. [12][2007] 2 Qd R 87.…
R v McDougall and Collas
[2006] QCA 365

…A Crim R 240; [2008] QCA 201, cited R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79; [1998] QCA 36, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Nolan [2009] QCA 129, cited R v Prendergast [2012] QCA 164, cited R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517, considered COUNSEL: J A Fraser for the applicant D C Boyle for…
R v Hess
[2003] QCA 553 Para 1

…that they were convictions of serious violent offences: R v McDougall and Collas .[12] [8][2012] QCA 164. [9][2009] QCA 129. [10][2008] QCA 201. [11][2003] QCA 553. [12][2007] 2 Qd R 87.…
R v Bird and Schipper
[2000] QCA 94 Para 1

…Act : see R v Lovell ;[23] R v Bird and Schipper ;[24] and s 9(4), especially s 9(4)(h) Penalties and Sentences Act . [23][1999] 2 Qd R 79, 83. [24][2000] QCA 94, [33]. After careful deliberation, I am persuaded that in view of the mitigating features and despite the serious nature of the present offending, the…
R v Lovell
[1998] QCA 36

…rim R 399; [2009] QCA 274, related R v Leu; R v Togia (2008) 186 A Crim R 240; [2008] QCA 201, cited R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79; [1998] QCA 36, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Nolan [2009] QCA 129, cited R v Prendergast [2012] QCA 164, cited R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517…
R v Dinaro
[1997] QCA 358 Para 1

…ough that has the effect that the applicant will not be additionally punished for serious violent criminal conduct. [20][1991] 2 Qd R 686, 702. [21][1997] QCA 358, 9. [22][2011] QCA 119, [14]-[16]. I am uncertain why her Honour emphasised that the delay in sentencing was caused by the applicant rather than the pr…
R v Clements
[1993] QCA 245

…ry [2011] QCA 119, cited R v Bird and Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394; [2000] QCA 94, cited R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245, considered R v Dinaro (1997) 97 A Crim R 137; [1997] QCA 358, cited R v Dionne Matthew Lacey and Jade Michael Lacey , unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, No 920 of…
Mill v The Queen
[1988] HCA 70

…992 (Qld), s 9, Pt 9A Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55, cited R v Barry [2011] QCA 119, cited R v Bird and Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394; [2000] QCA 94, cited…
Neal v The Queen
[1982] HCA 55

…CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55, cited R v Barry [2011] QCA 119, cited R v Bird and Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394; [2000] QCA 94, cited R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245, considere…
Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland
[2011] HCA 107 Para 1

…e proceedings in the Court of Appeal.[27] [25] R v Lacey (2009) 197 A Crim R 399. [26] Lacey v Attorney-General for the State of Queensland (2011) 242 CLR 573. [27] R v Lacey & Lacey [2011] QCA 386. The sentencing judge recorded the prosecutor's submission that the delay had been caused by the applicant's own conduct…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
9, 9(1) 3 mentions (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Lacey [2013] QCA 292
PARTIES:	R v LACEY, Dionne Matthew (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 203 of 2012 SC No 221 of 2012 SC No 308 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 March 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Margaret Wilson and Douglas JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Margaret Wilson and Douglas JJ concurring as to the order made, Margaret McMurdo P dissenting
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 trafficking in a dangerous drug (Ind 308/11, count 1); possessing a thing for use in connection with trafficking in a dangerous drug (Ind 308/11, count 2); possessing property obtained from trafficking (Ind 308/11, count 3); three counts of possessing a dangerous drug (Ind 308/11, counts 4 to 6); and three counts of armed robbery in company with personal violence (Ind 221/12, counts 1 to 3) – where the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count of armed robbery, to be served concurrently with each other, but cumulatively with the effective term of 18 years imprisonment (with parole eligibility after 12.8 years) that the applicant was serving at the time for previous offences including manslaughter and torture – where the applicant contends that the sentencing judge erred by imposing a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences, thereby altering his full time release date and the date of his earliest possible release – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a cumulative sentence on the robbery offences – whether sentence manifestly excessive Drugs Misuse Regulation 1987 (Qld), Sch 1 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9, Pt 9A Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered Neal v The Queen (1982) 149 CLR 305; [1982] HCA 55, cited R v Barry[2011] QCA 119, cited R v Bird and Schipper (2000) 110 A Crim R 394; [2000] QCA 94, cited R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245, considered R v Dinaro (1997) 97 A Crim R 137; [1997] QCA 358, cited R v Dionne Matthew Lacey and Jade Michael Lacey, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, No 920 of 2008, Martin J, 13 May 2009, related R v Hess[2003] QCA 553, cited R v Jade Michael Lacey, unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Ind No 308 of 2011, de Jersey CJ, 19 March 2013, cited R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686, cited R v Lacey & Lacey[2011]…