R v Laing - [2003] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Laing [2003] QCA 92
PARTIES: R
v
LAING, Rodney William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 411 of 2002 SC No 553 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 6 March 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 6 March 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P and Williams JA and Philippides
J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS: Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted
in respect of counts 1 and 3

Set aside sentence imposed on counts 1 and 3 and, in lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a period of 12 months, suspended after the eight days already served for an operational period of four years
The sentence on count 2 stands

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – where accused pleaded guilty to one count of producing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams and one count of possession of things used in connection with the commission of a crime – where accused was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment suspended after three months for an operational period of five years – where accused pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent appropriation of power and was fined $5000 – whether judge erred in finding certain facts – whether sentences were manifestly
excessive
R v Fioretti (unreported Helman J Supreme Court 5 April
2001), considered
R v Gandini unreported Thomas J Supreme Court 29 April
1996), considered
R v Hellmuth (unreported Cullinane J Supreme Court 6
September 1995), considered

COUNSEL: C Callaghan for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Boe and Callaghan for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J: On 5 December 2002 the applicant pleaded	20
guilty to one count of producing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams, a second count of fraudulent appropriation of power and a third count of possession of things used in connection with the commission of a crime.
30
In respect of the first and third counts, he was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment, suspended after serving three months for an operational period of five years. As to the second count he was fined $5,000.
40
The applicant appeals against the sentences on the ground that the learned sentencing Judge erred in his finding and that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The applicant was
granted bail on 12 December 2002 pending the hearing of this
application. He has served eight days in custody.	50
An agreed set of facts was tendered at the sentence hearing. The agreed set of facts recorded that on 16 May 2002 the police executed a search warrant at the applicant's house at Beenleigh. The applicant made admissions to the police that
60
he had some plants to declare and admitted that he was the
sole occupier of the…

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 Laing

Details

AGLC: R v Laing [2003] QCA 92
Case: [2003] QCA 92
Decision Date: 6/03/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the criminal case of R v Laing, the defendant was charged with multiple offences, including the production of cannabis exceeding 500 grams, possession of items used in connection with the commission of a crime, and fraudulent appropriation of power. The defendant pleaded guilty to the charges, and the case was heard in the relevant court, which imposed a sentence on the defendant. The defendant subsequently sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on certain counts, arguing that the judge had erred in finding certain facts and that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the judge had correctly found certain facts that influenced the sentence and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The defendant contended that the judge had erred in certain factual findings and that the sentences imposed were too severe given the circumstances of the case. The appeal focused on the correctness of the factual findings and the appropriateness of the sentences in light of the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the facts of the case and the reasoning behind the judge's findings. It was determined that the judge had indeed erred in certain factual findings, which had influenced the sentence. The court found that these errors warranted the granting of leave to appeal. Furthermore, the court considered the severity of the sentences imposed and found that they were not manifestly excessive, although the factual errors did impact the overall sentencing process. Consequently, the appeal was successful in respect of certain counts, and leave to appeal against the sentences for these counts was granted.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on counts 1 and 3 was granted. This decision allowed the defendant to challenge the sentences on the grounds of the judge's erroneous factual findings, providing an opportunity for a re-evaluation of the appropriate sentences in light of the correct facts.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

in respect of counts 1 and 3

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 Laing [2003] QCA 92
PARTIES:	R v LAING, Rodney William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 411 of 2002 SC No 553 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	6 March 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 March 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Williams JA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted in respect of counts 1 and 3
Set aside sentence imposed on counts 1 and 3 and, in lieu thereof, sentence the applicant to imprisonment for a period of 12 months, suspended after the eight days already served for an operational period of four years
The sentence on count 2 stands
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – where accused pleaded guilty to one count of producing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams and one count of possession of things used in connection with the commission of a crime – where accused was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment suspended after three months for an operational period of five years – where accused pleaded guilty to one count of fraudulent appropriation of power and was fined $5000 – whether judge erred in finding certain facts – whether sentences were manifestly
excessive
R v Fioretti (unreported Helman J Supreme Court 5 April 2001), considered R v Gandini unreported Thomas J Supreme Court 29 April 1996), considered R v Hellmuth (unreported Cullinane J Supreme Court 6 September 1995), considered

COUNSEL:	C Callaghan for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Boe and Callaghan for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent