R v Leighton - [2014] QCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Leighton [2014] QCA 169

PARTIES:

R
v
LEIGHTON, Maree Sharelle
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 318 of 2013
DC No 401 of 2013
DC No 267 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

25 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Henry J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

Grant the application for leave to appeal.1.

Allow the appeal by vacating the sentence of eight years imprisonment on count 2 and substituting the sentence of six years imprisonment and by vacating the date the offender is to be eligible for parole and substituting the date, 12 May 2015.2.

Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed at first instance.3.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery in company, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, one count of armed robbery, one count of being in premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of robbery while pretending to be armed – where the applicant's offending involved threatening vulnerable women with a syringe, telling them that she had Hepatitis C or AIDS and stealing from them – where in one case the applicant inflicted injury upon a complainant with a syringe – where the applicant had a significant criminal history including armed robbery with violence – where the applicant had an unhappy childhood including sexual abuse perpetrated when she was five years old – where the applicant suffered from a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, a chronic depressive disorder and a heroin dependence disorder – where the applicant regretted and was ashamed of her actions – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1998] HCA 70, cited
R v Baxter[2010] QCA 235, cited
R v Brown[2003] QCA 372, cited
R v Horne[2005] QCA 218, cited
R v Keating[2002] QCA 19, cited
R v Morrow[2006] QCA 305, cited
R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527; [2001] QCA 172, cited
R v Styles[2003] QCA 374, considered

COUNSEL:

F Richards for the applicant/appellant
J Phillips for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Maree Leighton, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Ipswich on 13 December 2013 to the following indictable offences: armed robbery in company on 14 May 2012 (count 1); assault with intent to steal with violence while armed on 17 May 2012 (count 2); assault occasioning bodily harm while armed on 17 May…

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 Leighton

Details

AGLC: R v Leighton [2014] QCA 169
Case: [2014] QCA 169
Decision Date: 25 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent appealed against her sentence for multiple offences, including armed robbery and assault occasioning bodily harm. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The respondent had pleaded guilty to several charges, involving the use of a syringe to threaten vulnerable women, resulting in physical and psychological harm. The respondent had a troubled past, marked by a history of criminal behaviour and personal trauma, including childhood sexual abuse. Additionally, she suffered from chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, a chronic depressive disorder, and a heroin dependence disorder. The sentencing judge had imposed an eight-year imprisonment term, which the respondent contested as excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the respondent's criminal history, her background, and her remorse. The court found that while the crimes were serious, the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. Consequently, the court granted the respondent's appeal and reduced the sentence to six years imprisonment, with a new parole eligibility date.

Orders

Orders of the court

Grant the application for leave to appeal.1.

Allow the appeal by vacating the sentence of eight years imprisonment on count 2 and substituting the sentence of six years imprisonment and by vacating the date the offender is to be eligible for parole and substituting the date, 12 May 2015.2.

Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed at first instance.3.

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 Leighton [2014] QCA 169
PARTIES:	R v LEIGHTON, Maree Sharelle (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 318 of 2013 DC No 401 of 2013 DC No 267 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	25 July 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Gotterson JA and Henry J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Grant the application for leave to appeal.1. Allow the appeal by vacating the sentence of eight years imprisonment on count 2 and substituting the sentence of six years imprisonment and by vacating the date the offender is to be eligible for parole and substituting the date, 12 May 2015.2. Otherwise confirm the sentence imposed at first instance.3.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery in company, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, one count of armed robbery, one count of being in premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of robbery while pretending to be armed – where the applicant's offending involved threatening vulnerable women with a syringe, telling them that she had Hepatitis C or AIDS and stealing from them – where in one case the applicant inflicted injury upon a complainant with a syringe – where the applicant had a significant criminal history including armed robbery with violence – where the applicant had an unhappy childhood including sexual abuse perpetrated when she was five years old – where the applicant suffered from a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, a chronic depressive disorder and a heroin dependence disorder – where the applicant regretted and was ashamed of her actions – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1998] HCA 70, cited R v Baxter[2010] QCA 235, cited R v Brown[2003] QCA 372, cited R v Horne[2005] QCA 218, cited R v Keating[2002] QCA 19, cited R v Morrow[2006] QCA 305, cited R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527; [2001] QCA 172, cited R v Styles[2003] QCA 374, considered
COUNSEL:	F Richards for the applicant/appellant J Phillips for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent