R v Maxwell - [2018] QCA 17

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Maxwell [2018] QCA 17

PARTIES:

R
v
MAXWELL, Timothy Keith
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 148 of 2017
DC No 428 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 21 June 2017; Date of Sentence: 21 June 2017 (McGinness DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

27 February 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 February 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison and Philip McMurdo JJA

ORDERS:

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful stalking and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice – where the appellant appeared eight times before the court and on none of those occasions amended or withdrew those pleas – where the appellant submitted the pleas were made on the basis of wrongful advice and undue pressure from counsel – where the appellant contends that the pleas are irrelevant as guilt could not have been found – whether it would be a miscarriage of justice if the pleas were not set aside

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months for the first count and a concurrent term of 18 months in relation to the second count – where the appellant’s parole release date was set for three months after the commencement of the sentence – where the appellant’s conviction led to the loss of the appellant’s financial services licences – where the appellant submits that this had significant personal and professional consequences – where the learned sentencing judge adverted to the adverse effect the sentence would have on the appellant’s employment – where the appellant contends the learned sentencing judge gave inappropriate or little weight to that particular consequence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), s 34

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v AN[2003] QCA 349, cited
R v Baker[2011] QCA 33, considered
R v Getawan[2014] QCA 235, considered
R v Harnden[2003] QCA 340, cited
R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, distinguished
R v Macdonald[2008] QCA 384, considered
R v Nesbitt[2004] QCA 333, considered

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with the reasons of Morrison JA and with the orders his Honour proposes.
MORRISON JA: The appellant, Mr Maxwell, had an 18-month relationship with a woman (whom I shall call X). The relationship was rocky and eventually ended…

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 Maxwell

Details

AGLC: R v Maxwell [2018] QCA 17
Case: [2018] QCA 17
Decision Date: 27 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Maxwell, the appellant sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appellant had pleaded guilty to charges of unlawful stalking and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The appellant argued that his pleas were the result of wrongful advice and undue pressure from his counsel, and that it would be a miscarriage of justice to uphold the pleas. Additionally, the appellant argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and that the learned sentencing judge did not adequately consider the personal and professional consequences of the sentence.

The court was required to determine whether the appellant's pleas were made voluntarily and with proper legal advice, and whether there had been a miscarriage of justice in proceeding on the guilty pleas. The court also had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, given the personal and professional consequences for the appellant.

The court found that the appellant had not established that his pleas were made on the basis of wrongful advice or undue pressure. The court held that the appellant had ample opportunity to withdraw his pleas but chose not to do so. The court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that the learned sentencing judge had appropriately considered the personal and professional consequences of the sentence.

The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Maxwell [2018] QCA 17
PARTIES:	R v MAXWELL, Timothy Keith (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 148 of 2017 DC No 428 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Conviction: 21 June 2017; Date of Sentence: 21 June 2017 (McGinness DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	27 February 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 February 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison and Philip McMurdo JJA
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed. 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where the appellant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful stalking and one count of attempting to pervert the course of justice – where the appellant appeared eight times before the court and on none of those occasions amended or withdrew those pleas – where the appellant submitted the pleas were made on the basis of wrongful advice and undue pressure from counsel – where the appellant contends that the pleas are irrelevant as guilt could not have been found – whether it would be a miscarriage of justice if the pleas were not set aside CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months for the first count and a concurrent term of 18 months in relation to the second count – where the appellant’s parole release date was set for three months after the commencement of the sentence – where the appellant’s conviction led to the loss of the appellant’s financial services licences – where the appellant submits that this had significant personal and professional consequences – where the learned sentencing judge adverted to the adverse effect the sentence would have on the appellant’s employment – where the appellant contends the learned sentencing judge gave inappropriate or little weight to that particular consequence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Property Occupations Act 2014 (Qld), s 34 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v AN[2003] QCA 349, cited R v Baker[2011] QCA 33, considered R v Getawan[2014] QCA 235, considered R v Harnden[2003] QCA 340, cited R v Liberti (1991) 55 A Crim R 120, distinguished R v Macdonald[2008] QCA 384, considered R v Nesbitt[2004] QCA 333, considered
COUNSEL:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent