R v Layne - [2012] QCA 227

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Layne [2012] QCA 227

PARTIES:

R
v
LAYNE, Leisa Marie Nora
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 47 of 2012
DC No 325 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

24 August 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 August 2012

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of perjury – where the appellant was convicted of driving a car without a licence on 25 July 2007 – where, during an application to re-open sentence, the appellant gave testimony to the effect that she was not the driver of the car at that time – whether the verdict reached by the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of perjury – where appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after serving nine months and operational for a period of three years – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 125, s 668E(1)

Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72, cited
M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited
MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, cited
R v Frame [2009] QCA 9, cited
R v Le [1996] 2 Qd R 516; [1995] QCA 479, cited
R v Matauaina [2011] QCA 344, cited
R v Pacey (2005) 158 A Crim R 151; [2005] QCA 203, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
A W Moynihan SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of Philippides J and with her proposed orders.

WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Philippides J and agree with her Honour’s reasons and the orders which she proposes.

PHILIPPIDES J: The appellant was convicted of one count of perjury on 21 February 2012 after a trial in the District Court. She now appeals that conviction on the ground that it is unreasonable or cannot be supported having regard to the evidence pursuant to s 668E(1) of the Criminal Code. Additionally, she applies for leave to appeal against her sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after serving…

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 Layne

Details

AGLC: R v Layne [2012] QCA 227
Case: [2012] QCA 227
Decision Date: 24 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Layne appealed against his conviction of perjury and sentence. The appellant was convicted by a jury of perjury after testifying that he was not the driver of a car when it was involved in an accident on 25 July 2007, when in fact he was. The appellant was also convicted of driving a car without a licence on that date. The appellant applied to re-open his sentence, giving testimony that he was not the driver of the car at the time, which was inconsistent with his earlier testimony. The appellant appealed against his conviction and sentence.

The legal issues for the court to determine were whether the jury's verdict of guilty was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the evidence presented at trial and the appellant's testimony during the application to re-open sentence. The court found that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence before them, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the jury's verdict was open to them on the evidence before them, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

2. Leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Layne [2012] QCA 227
PARTIES:	R v LAYNE, Leisa Marie Nora (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 47 of 2012 DC No 325 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	24 August 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 August 2012
JUDGES:	Muir and White JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. The appeal against conviction is dismissed. 2. Leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – VERDICT UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE HAVING REGARD TO EVIDENCE – APPEAL DISMISSED – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of perjury – where the appellant was convicted of driving a car without a licence on 25 July 2007 – where, during an application to re-open sentence, the appellant gave testimony to the effect that she was not the driver of the car at that time – whether the verdict reached by the jury was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the evidence CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted by a jury of perjury – where appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after serving nine months and operational for a period of three years – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 125, s 668E(1) Festa v The Queen (2001) 208 CLR 593; [2001] HCA 72, cited M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487; [1994] HCA 63, cited MFA v The Queen (2002) 213 CLR 606; [2002] HCA 53, cited R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510, cited R v Frame [2009] QCA 9, cited R v Le [1996] 2 Qd R 516; [1995] QCA 479, cited R v Matauaina [2011] QCA 344, cited R v Pacey (2005) 158 A Crim R 151; [2005] QCA 203, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf A W Moynihan SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent