R v Lacey and Lacey

Case [2010] QDC 344

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v Lacey & Lacey [2010] QDC 344
PARTIES:  R
v
DIONNE MATHEW LACEY
and
JADE MICHAEL LACEY
FILE NO/S:  Indictment 2783/08
DIVISION:  Criminal
PROCEEDING:  Sentence
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 		 District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:  10 September 2010
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  19 August, 10 September 2010
JUDGE:  Rafter SC DCJ
ORDER:  Dionne Mathew Lacey:

1.          Convictions recorded on counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

2.          In respect of count 5, the defendant is convicted but no penalty is imposed.

3.          Count 1 - 4 years imprisonment Count 2 - 4 years imprisonment Count 3 - 3 years imprisonment Count 4 - 6 years imprisonment Count 6 - 2 years imprisonment All sentences to be served concurrently with each

other.

4.          Direct that the sentences of imprisonment commence at the expiration of the sentence the defendant is serving for manslaughter.

5.          Declare the convictions on counts 1, 3 and 4 to be convictions of serious violent offences.

Jade Michael Lacey:

1.          Convictions recorded on counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6.

2.          In respect of count 5, the defendant is convicted but no penalty is imposed.

3.          Count 1 - 4 years imprisonment Count 2 - 4 years imprisonment Count 3 - 3 years imprisonment Count 4 - 6 years imprisonment Count 6 - 2 years imprisonment All sentences to be served concurrently with each

other.

4.          Direct that the sentences commence at the expiration of the sentence of 5 years imprisonment for unlawful wounding with intent to maim imposed in the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 13 May 2009.

5.          Declare the conviction on count 4 to be a conviction of a serious violent offence.

CATCHWORDS:  CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where each defendant
found guilty of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed
and in company, extortion, threatening violence at night,
torture, malicious act with intent and deprivation of liberty –
where Dionne Mathew Lacey sentenced to 10 years
imprisonment with a serious violent offence declaration for
manslaughter on 13 May 2009, increased to 11 years
imprisonment on appeal by the Attorney-General on 11
September 2009 – where Jade Michael Lacey sentenced to 5
years imprisonment for unlawful wounding with intent to
maim on 13 May 2009 – whether sentences of imprisonment
should be served concurrently or cumulatively –
consideration of totality principle of sentencing –
consideration of serious violent offence provisions in the
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 16
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 109, s 182, s 184, s 185 s 160D, s 161A, s 161B, s 161C

R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 110,
considered
R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174, considered
R v Clements (1993) 68 A Crim R 167; [1993] QCA 245,
referred to
R v Cowie [2005] QCA 223, considered
R v HAC [2006] QCA 460, considered
R v Hoad (1989) 42 A Crim…

Continue reading R v Lacey and Lacey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lacey and Lacey [2010] QDC 344
Case
[2010] QDC 344
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lacey and Lacey involved two defendants, Dionne Mathew Lacey and Jade Lacey, who were charged with a series of offences. The defendants were convicted of multiple charges including deprivation of liberty, torture, and assault. The court had to determine the appropriate sentences for the defendants, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the impact on the victim.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide included the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, the degree of culpability of each defendant, and the impact of the offences on the victim. The court had to weigh the mitigating factors presented by the defence against the aggravating factors highlighted by the prosecution, particularly the severity and brutality of the crimes. The court also needed to consider the principle of totality, ensuring that the cumulative sentence did not result in an excessively long period of imprisonment.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the offences were particularly egregious due to the level of violence and the psychological impact on the victim. The court emphasised the need for deterrence and denunciation, given the serious nature of the crimes. It was also important to ensure that the sentences reflected the culpability of each defendant. After considering the submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, the court decided that the defendants should each be sentenced to a term of imprisonment cumulative to their current sentences. The court's reasoning included a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles, the impact on the victim, and the necessity of ensuring that the sentences served as a deterrent against similar future offences.

The final orders of the court mandated that Dionne Mathew Lacey serve an additional 8.8 years to 10.8 years of imprisonment, cumulative to his current sentence, resulting in a total of 19 to 21 years. Jade Lacey was to serve an additional 8 to 10 years, cumulative to his current sentence, resulting in a total of 13 to 15 years. Both sentences took into account the time already served in presentence custody.

Orders

Orders of the court

Dionne Mathew Lacey:

Background

Background to the litigation

Upon return to the Ephraim Island unit, the victim went back to the laundry. He spent the night there. The next day Dionne drove the victim to a service station where Ashley Bowley was. The victim accompanied Bowley and was told that he had to work it out with him. Disputed facts There were some disputed facts. Mr Temby QC submitted that the verdicts of the jury did not necessarily mean the entirety of the victim's evidence was accepted. He referred in particular to the issue of the purpose of recovering the money from the victim. As I have mentioned, the prosecution case was that the victim was implicated in the “rip-off” of ecstasy tablets sold by Dionne to Ashley Bowley. Dionne's evidence was that he had lent Bowley $7,000 which was due to be repaid together with $500 interest on 22 April 2007. Dionne denied selling drugs to Bowley. Dionne claimed that he and Jade visited Bowley on the way to Brisbane in relation to the collection of that debt. Dionne said that the victim was being threatened and assaulted by Bowley. When the victim said he was able to get the money he owed Bowley, Dionne said he offered to assist him to obtain it. Dionne said that he would take the money owed to him from the money collected by the victim. The question of fact finding on sentence is governed by s 132C Evidence Act 1977. A disputed allegation of fact may be acted on if the Court is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the allegation is true. However, s 132C(4) provides that the degree of satisfaction required varies according to the adverse consequences of finding the allegation to be true. The jury rejected Dionne's evidence on every issue that arose for determination in respect of each of the six counts. As Mr Temby QC submitted, that does not necessarily mean that the jury accepted the victim's evidence with respect to every fact. The shooting at View Street Kingston where Mark Cone lived is a strong indication that the offences were committed in an endeavour to recover money owed by Bowley to Dionne from the sale of drugs. The victim was suspected of having been involved in the “rip-off” of some of those drugs. You had no reason to go to View Street Kingston if you were simply endeavouring to assist the victim to obtain money that he owed Bowley. I can see one of the defendants----- JADE LACEY: Because I am sick, your Honour, I had to sit down. HIS HONOUR: I accept Ashley Bowley's evidence that he purchased the ecstasy tablets from Dionne. The suspicion that the victim was implicated in the theft of a quantity of the ecstasy tablets by Andrew McLeod and Mark Cone provided the motivation for these offences. Jade evidently had a strong interest in recovering the money as well. That is indicated by his prominent role in the offences and his statement to the victim at one stage that he didn't care how long he had to have the victim, as long as he got his money. Victim impact statements The court is required by s 9(2)(c) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 to have regard to the nature and seriousness of the offences, including any physical, mental, or emotional harm to the victim. Victim impact statements in compliance with s 15(9) Victims of Crime Assistance Act 2009 were tendered by the Crown. The victim's statement (Exhibit 105) shows that the offences have had a significant impact upon him. The offences have affected his social life, employment prospects, sleep patterns and recreational activities. He feels that his life has been destroyed. This is reinforced by his mother's victim impact statement (Exhibit 104). Her statement shows that the trauma for the victim has had ramifications for the whole family. Mitigating factors

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

The offence of torture encompassed all of the acts at Brown Island including the shot fired by Jade through the victim's hand which was the subject of count 5. It was common ground that s 16 of the Criminal Code precluded the imposition of sentence for count 5. The standard practice in similar cases is for the conviction to stand but that no penalty be imposed: R v R and S, ex parte Attorney-General at paragraphs [16] and [49], R v Sams [2003] QCA 240 at page 6, and R v Ottley at paragraph [58]. Consideration As I have mentioned, the Crown’s submission is that each of you should be sentenced to 8 to 10 years imprisonment cumulative upon your present sentences. Dionne, your full-time discharge date is 11 May 2020. You must serve 8.8 years before being eligible for release on parole. Having regard to the 2 years presentence custody, the total period is 10.8 years. A cumulative sentence of 8 to 10 years would result in a total sentence of 19 to 21 years imprisonment. Your full time discharge date would be between 11 May 2028 and 2030. Section 182(2) Corrective Services Act 2006 provides that the parole eligibility date for a person serving a term of imprisonment for a serious violent offence is the day after the day on which the person has served the lesser of 80% of the term of imprisonment for the serious violent offence, or 15 years. That is unless a later parole eligibility date is fixed under Part 9 Division 3 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. Section 182(2) applies to the term of imprisonment as defined in s 4 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. By way of illustration, taking the lower end of the range proposed by the Crown, which is 8 years imprisonment to be served cumulatively, you would be required to serve 80% of 11 years (8.8 years) and 80% of 8 years (6.4 years) which totals 15.2 years. The 15 year maximum period provided by s 182(2) applies to each term of imprisonment, not to the overall period of imprisonment. Of course having regard to the 2 years presentence custody that would mean that you would serve 17.2 years in custody before being eligible for parole. Jade, you are serving a sentence of 5 years imprisonment. The imposition of a cumulative sentence of 8 to 10 years imprisonment would result in a total sentence of 13 to 15 years imprisonment. You also served 2 years in presentence custody, meaning the effective sentence would be 15 to 17 years. Jade's current parole eligibility date is the day after he has served half of the 5 year sentence (s 184(2) Corrective Services Act 2006). If the Crown's submission is accepted and a sentence of 8 to 10 years imprisonment is imposed with a declaration that you have been convicted of a serious violent offence, your parole eligibility date is arrived at by applying s 185 Corrective Services Act 2006. Your notional parole date is the day after you have served 2.5 years. If a cumulative sentence of 8 to 10 years is imposed with a declaration that you have been convicted of a serious violent offence you would be required to serve 6.4 to 8 years of that sentence, which is referred to in s 185(3) as the additional eligibility period. In accordance with s 185(4) your parole eligibility date would be the day after you have served 8.9 to 10.5 years. Of course, as I have mentioned, you also served 2 years in presentence custody. That means you would serve a total of between 10.9 and 12.5 years.