R v Leigh - [1996] QCA 561

[1996] QCA 561

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS J
de JERSEY J
DOWSETT J

CA No 202 of 1996

THE QUEEN

NOEL ERNEST LEIGH

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/08/96

JUDGMENT

DOWSETT J: The applicant pleaded guilty to attempting to procure another person called Joyner to burn down a house property at the Gold Coast which was owned by a Mrs McGoldrick. The house was unoccupied and was surrounded by vacant land which was used as a car park.

The owner had been approached by a representative of the owner of the adjoining land seeking to acquire the property from her. She was not interested in selling. It appears that the prospective purchaser placed a substantial amount of pressure on her to try to induce her to sell. One can only infer that the property was seen as having a substantial commercial value. Subsequently, the offer to purchase was withdrawn.

The person Joyner had been employed by the present applicant on a number of occasions, performing small jobs. He had made it clear to the applicant that he was in financial difficulty and was subsequently approached by the applicant with the suggestion that he burn down the house in question for reward. The applicant expected to be paid $5,000 of which he would pass on $4,000 to the person Joyner to carry out the offence.

Joyner was appropriately shocked by the proposal, although he did not disclose this to the applicant, and went to the police. As a result, a third person in company with Joyner, spoke to the applicant and the conversation was recorded. The applicant was charged with the present offence to which he pleaded guilty.
He said that he thought he had been approached by a member of the owner's family, Mrs McGoldrick's family, to burn down the house and whether that be so or not, there can be no doubt that the offence of which he stands convicted, that is, attempting to procure the commission of the offence of arson, is a very serious one.

He was motivated by the expectation of financial gain and although it is not appropriate to speculate as to who may have been his principal in fact, the circumstances surrounding the previous dealings with Mrs McGoldrick are strongly suggestive of a particular conclusion.

The Crown submitted that the range of sentence for this offence was two to four years and that this was a matter where the sentence should be towards the higher end of the range. The applicant was born on 18 December 1928 and was therefore 67 years of age at the time of the offence. He is married with a young child. He has a not insignificant criminal history going back over some years, but it is fair to say that between 1953 and 1990 he had no criminal conviction.

In 1990, however, he was convicted of a number of offences arising out of the sale of prescribed interests, as that term is defined in the appropriate companies legislation. He was…

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 Leigh

Details

AGLC: R v Leigh [1996] QCA 561
Case: [1996] QCA 561
Decision Date: 21 August 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leigh involves the applicant, Noel Ernest Leigh, who pleaded guilty to attempting to procure another individual, Joyner, to burn down a house owned by Mrs McGoldrick at the Gold Coast. The house, which was unoccupied and surrounded by vacant land used as a car park, was the subject of an unsuccessful purchase offer from the owner of the adjoining land. Leigh, motivated by financial gain, suggested to Joyner, who was in financial difficulty, that they burn down the house for a reward. Joyner reported the plan to the police, leading to a recorded conversation between Leigh and another individual accompanying Joyner. Leigh was subsequently charged with the offence of attempting to procure the commission of arson.

The legal issues before the court included determining the appropriate sentencing range for the offence of attempting to procure the commission of arson and whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was erroneous. The Crown argued that the range of sentence was two to four years, with the sentence in this case falling towards the higher end of the range due to Leigh's criminal history, particularly his previous convictions for offences of dishonesty. Leigh's counsel argued that the sentence of four years did not appropriately reflect the mitigating factors, including Leigh's age, family circumstances, and his guilty plea.

The court found that the sentence of four years, while on the higher end of the range, was appropriate given the circumstances. The court emphasised Leigh's significant criminal history, including recent convictions for offences of dishonesty, indicating that a substantial period of imprisonment was necessary. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors but concluded that these did not warrant a sentence lower than four years. The court also rejected the argument that the sentencing judge had erred in determining the appropriate starting point for the sentence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders