R v Lambert; ex parte A-G - [2000] QCA 141

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Lambert; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 141

PARTIES: R
v
LAMBERT, Jason Scott
(appellant/respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent/appellant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 419 of 1999
CA No 377 of 1999
DC No 568 of 1998

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against conviction
Sentence appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON: 28 April 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 12 April 2000

JUDGES: McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Helman J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Attorney-General's appeal against sentence allowed; Sentence on count 1 varied by replacing that sentence with one of three years imprisonment; Balance of the order (concurrent sentences of six months and a declaration in relation to pre-sentence custody) to remain undisturbed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MODES OF PROOF – IDENTIFICATION FROM PHOTOGRAPHS - assaults by security officer at nightclub – whether evidence of identification from photoboard unfair – allegation that photographs did not match any verbal descriptions given by witnesses

CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MODES OF PROOF – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – whether evidence of name addressed to offender during assault should have been excluded in exercise of discretion – whether insufficient directions on use of evidence – whether evidence incapable of satisfying a properly instructed jury

CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM – SENTENCING

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PARITY – GENERALLY

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OTHER - effect of delay between offences and sentencing

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – GENERALLY – whether discount for plea of guilty in relation to some offences only

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES, SENTENCES ON ESCAPE AND COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE – SENTENCES OF TWO OR MORE COUNTS – whether cumulative sentences or increased head sentence on first count best reflect further offences - sentence manifestly inadequate

Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 13

R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588 considered
R v Brookes CA No 317 of 1991, 13 May 1992 considered
R v Brooks CA No 109 of 1998, 19 September 1990 considered
R v Camm CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999 considered
R v Pop CA No 549 of 1994, 15 March 1995 considered

COUNSEL:
A Moynihan for the appellant/respondent
M J…

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 Lambert; ex parte A-G

Details

AGLC: R v Lambert; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 141
Case: [2000] QCA 141
Decision Date: 28 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lambert; ex parte A-G involved the defendant, Lambert, who was convicted of several offences including assault and affray. The Attorney-General subsequently appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The appeal raised several issues including the admissibility of identification evidence, the sufficiency of jury directions, and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The court was required to determine whether the evidence of identification from a photoboard was reliable and whether the jury was properly directed on the use of this evidence. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the evidence was capable of satisfying a properly instructed jury. The court also needed to assess the appropriateness of the sentence given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The court found that the identification evidence from the photoboard was admissible, despite the witnesses' claims that the photographs did not match their verbal descriptions. The court concluded that the jury was adequately directed on the use of this evidence, and that it was capable of satisfying a properly instructed jury. The court further found that the evidence of the name addressed to the offender during the assault was properly admitted and did not warrant exclusion. Regarding sentencing, the court held that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and varied the sentence on count one to three years imprisonment, while maintaining the rest of the sentence unchanged.

The appeal against the conviction was dismissed, but the appeal against the sentence was allowed. The sentence on count one was varied to three years imprisonment, with the rest of the sentence remaining as six months imprisonment concurrently and a declaration in relation to pre-sentence custody. This decision ensures that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offences committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal against conviction dismissed. Attorney-General's appeal against sentence allowed; Sentence on count 1 varied by replacing that sentence with one of three years imprisonment; Balance of the order (concurrent sentences of six months and a declaration in relation to pre-sentence custody) to remain undisturbed.

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 Lambert; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 141
PARTIES:	R v LAMBERT, Jason Scott (appellant/respondent) EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (respondent/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 419 of 1999 CA No 377 of 1999 DC No 568 of 1998
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against conviction Sentence appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2000
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Thomas JA and Helman J Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed. Attorney-General's appeal against sentence allowed; Sentence on count 1 varied by replacing that sentence with one of three years imprisonment; Balance of the order (concurrent sentences of six months and a declaration in relation to pre-sentence custody) to remain undisturbed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MODES OF PROOF – IDENTIFICATION FROM PHOTOGRAPHS - assaults by security officer at nightclub – whether evidence of identification from photoboard unfair – allegation that photographs did not match any verbal descriptions given by witnesses CRIMINAL LAW – EVIDENTIARY MATTERS RELATING TO WITNESSES AND ACCUSED PERSONS – IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE – MODES OF PROOF – CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE – whether evidence of name addressed to offender during assault should have been excluded in exercise of discretion – whether insufficient directions on use of evidence – whether evidence incapable of satisfying a properly instructed jury CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – OTHER OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – ACTS INTENDED TO CAUSE OR CAUSING DANGER TO LIFE OR BODILY HARM – SENTENCING CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PARITY – GENERALLY CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OTHER - effect of delay between offences and sentencing CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – PLEA OF GUILTY, CONTRITION AND CO-OPERATION – GENERALLY – whether discount for plea of guilty in relation to some offences only CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – CONCURRENT, CUMULATIVE AND ADDITIONAL SENTENCES, SENTENCES ON ESCAPE AND COMMENCEMENT OF SENTENCE – SENTENCES OF TWO OR MORE COUNTS – whether cumulative sentences or increased head sentence on first count best reflect further offences - sentence manifestly inadequate Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 13 R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588 considered R v Brookes CA No 317 of 1991, 13 May 1992 considered R v Brooks CA No 109 of 1998, 19 September 1990 considered R v Camm CA No 431 of 1998, 1 April 1999 considered R v Pop CA No 549 of 1994, 15 March 1995 considered
COUNSEL:	A Moynihan for the appellant/respondent M J…