R v Latemore - [2019] QCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Latemore [2019] QCA 55

PARTIES:

R
v
LATEMORE, David John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 23 of 2019
DC No 279 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Sentence: 1 February 2019 (Long SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

9 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Bowskill J

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant plead guilty to six counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, two counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception and four counts of using a forged document – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment to be released after serving four months upon entering into a recognizance of $2,500 – where the applicant had mental health conditions during the period of offending – where the sentencing judge considered the applicant’s mental conditions – whether a sentence involving actual incarceration was manifestly excessive

R v Charleson, unreported, Robertson DCJ, DC No 371 of 2015, 29 March 2016, considered
R v Fidler (2010) 199 A Crim R 54; [2010] QCA 25, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: The applicant had a normal and reasonably happy upbringing. His parents brought him up well and decently. He also did well enough at school but decided to leave school at grade 9. He went to work at an aquarium business and later bought it from his employer. He sold it and then worked in different positions. He married at 19 but that marriage ended after three years. In his mid-twenties he applied to join and was accepted by the Queensland Police Force. By then he had completed grade 12 schooling by correspondence and had begun to study for a Business Diploma and a Justice Administration Diploma. He succeeded in earning these diplomas and was sworn in as a constable in 1996.
He married again in 1997. There was a child of the marriage. He was an honest and reliable Queensland policeman for 10 years. He was promoted to senior constable in 2003. Between 2005 and 2009 he was often appointed an acting Sergeant.
From late 2008 the applicant began to act in a way that was abnormal for him, judged by his past life and what it showed about his character. Indeed, his behaviour was bizarre. For reasons that will become clear, it is desirable to relate the applicants total offending, including the State offences to which he pleaded guilty and for which Judge Robertson sentenced him in January 2016. I will later identify the Commonwealth offences for which he was sentenced separately…

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 Latemore

Details

AGLC: R v Latemore [2019] QCA 55
Case: [2019] QCA 55
Decision Date: 9 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Latemore involves the applicant appealing against his sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive. The applicant had pleaded guilty to various counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, attempting to obtain such advantages, and using forged documents. He was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment, but with a non-custodial release after serving only four months, contingent upon entering into a recognizance of $2,500. The applicant had significant mental health issues during the period of his offending, which the sentencing judge took into account when determining his sentence. The primary issue for the court was whether the sentence, which included a period of incarceration, was manifestly excessive given the applicant’s mental health conditions.

The court considered several factors in reaching its decision, including the severity of the crimes, the need for general deterrence, and the principles of rehabilitation. The court also weighed the mitigating factor of the applicant’s mental health conditions. Ultimately, the court found that while the applicant's mental health issues were a significant mitigating factor, they did not outweigh the seriousness of the offences or the need for punishment. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and therefore refused the application for a new trial or appeal against the sentence.

The court’s reasoning focused on the balance between the need for punishment and the applicant’s mitigating circumstances. The court recognised the impact of the applicant’s mental health but determined that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and the need to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system. The final orders were that the application for appeal against the sentence was refused, and the original sentence would stand as imposed.

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 Latemore [2019] QCA 55
PARTIES:	R v LATEMORE, David John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 23 of 2019 DC No 279 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore – Date of Sentence: 1 February 2019 (Long SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	9 April 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 April 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Gotterson JA and Bowskill J
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant plead guilty to six counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, two counts of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception and four counts of using a forged document – where the applicant was sentenced to two years and six months imprisonment to be released after serving four months upon entering into a recognizance of $2,500 – where the applicant had mental health conditions during the period of offending – where the sentencing judge considered the applicant’s mental conditions – whether a sentence involving actual incarceration was manifestly excessive R v Charleson, unreported, Robertson DCJ, DC No 371 of 2015, 29 March 2016, considered R v Fidler (2010) 199 A Crim R 54; [2010] QCA 25, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent