R v Leach

Case [2004] QCA 189


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R  v Leach [2004] QCA 189

PARTIES:

R
v
LEACH, Jeffrey Francis
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 50 of 2004

DC No  484 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

2 June 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Townsville

HEARING DATE:

2 June 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Cullinane and Jones JJ

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.   Appeal allowed

3.   Set aside the sentences in relation to counts 1 and 2 and substitute therefor, an order that the applicant in each of those counts, be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and be released on probation for a period of three years, conditioned upon his undertaking such psychiatric, psychological and counselling services as may be directed by the community services officer, together with the standard conditions applicable to probation orders

4.   The declaration as to presentence custody made by the learned sentencing Judge continues to apply

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – STALKING – where applicant sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of twelve, eighteen and six months imprisonment respectively for the charges of stalking, stalking with a circumstance of aggravation and wilful damage – whether trial judge was in error in placing emphasis on the commission of offences during the currency of an earlier probation order – whether trial judge failed to take into account the benefits to the community of controlled treatment undertaken within a community based order rather that in a correctional institute –– whether sentences were manifestly excessive 

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

J Greggory for the respondent 

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the    respondent

JONES J:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences of imprisonment imposed by the District Court at Cairns for one offence of stalking; one offence of stalking with aggravation and one offence of wilful damage.  The applicant pleaded guilty to each offence on the 27th of November 2003 and sentences were imposed on the 22nd of January 2004 after the learned sentencing Judge had received a presentence report prepared by the Department of Corrective Services dated the 14th of January 2004 and an addendum report dated the 21st of June 2004.

The first offence of stalking relates to conduct between the 31st of October 2001 and 3 May 2003.  The complainant was a 20 year old woman, international student studying in Cairns.  She commenced her studies there in August of 2001.  The applicant was a member of the same class.  He obtained the complainant's phone number and commenced to phone her once or twice a week to discuss course work.  He then asked her out socially a few times before the end of the term.

When studies recommenced…

Continue reading R v Leach

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Leach [2004] QCA 189
Case
[2004] QCA 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leach involves an appeal against a sentence handed down by a lower court. The applicant was convicted of stalking, stalking with a circumstance of aggravation, and wilful damage, for which he was sentenced to concurrent imprisonment terms of twelve, eighteen, and six months, respectively. The applicant argued that the trial judge erred in emphasising the commission of these offences during the currency of an earlier probation order, and that the judge failed to take into account the benefits to the community of controlled treatment undertaken within a community-based order rather than in a correctional institute. The applicant further argued that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge was in error in placing emphasis on the commission of the offences during the currency of an earlier probation order, and whether the judge failed to take into account the benefits to the community of controlled treatment undertaken within a community-based order rather than in a correctional institute. The court also had to consider whether the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had erred in placing undue emphasis on the commission of the offences during the currency of an earlier probation order. The court also found that the trial judge had failed to take into account the benefits to the community of controlled treatment undertaken within a community-based order rather than in a correctional institute. The court found that the sentences were manifestly excessive and granted leave to appeal against the sentence.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentences in relation to counts 1 and 2. In their place, the court ordered that the applicant be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and be released on probation for a period of three years, conditioned upon his undertaking such psychiatric, psychological, and counselling services as may be directed by the community services officer, together with the standard conditions applicable to probation orders. The declaration as to presentence custody made by the learned sentencing judge continues to apply.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the sentences in relation to counts 1 and 2 and substitute therefor, an order that the applicant in each of those counts, be sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment and be released on probation for a period of three years, conditioned upon his undertaking such psychiatric, psychological and counselling services as may be directed by the community services officer, together with the standard conditions applicable to probation orders

4. The declaration as to presentence custody made by the learned sentencing Judge continues to apply

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.