SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v McGinniss [2015] QCA 34
PARTIES:
R
v
McGINNISS, Matthew Alan
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 171 of 2014
SC No 637 of 2013DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
13 March 2015
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 February 2015
JUDGES:
Carmody CJ and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in Schedule 1 dangerous drugs and one count of possession of a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams – where the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with the declaration that the conviction was a serious violent offence conviction for the trafficking offence and a concurrent eight years imprisonment for the possession offence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant had commenced upon rehabilitation prior to sentencing – where the sentencing judge, in passing sentence, referred to evidence that the applicant had commenced upon rehabilitation – where rehabilitation was not complete – whether the sentencing judge failed to give any or any appropriate weight to the applicant’s rehabilitation
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Bradforth[2003] QCA 183, considered
R v Feakes[2009] QCA 376, considered
R v Galeano[2013] 2 Qd R 464; [2013] QCA 51, considered
R v Illin[2014] QCA 285, cited
R v Johnson[2014] QCA 79, considered
R v Kashton [2005] QCA 70, considered
R v Prendergast[2012] QCA 164, cited
R v Rizk & Raciti[2004] QCA 359, cited
R v Safi[2015] QCA 13, citedCOUNSEL:
G McGuire for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Guest Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
CARMODY CJ: I agree with Fraser JA’s proposed order and his reasons. The order of the court is that the application for leave to appeal is refused.
FRASER JA: On 12 June 2014 the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of one count of trafficking in dangerous drugs and one count of possession of a dangerous drug in excess of 200 grams. On the first count he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment, with an automatic serious violent offence declaration having the effect of requiring him to serve eight years imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole. He was sentenced to a concurrent term of eight years imprisonment on the second count. The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against…
Continue reading R v McGinniss
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v McGinniss [2015] QCA 34
- Case
- [2015] QCA 34
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge had acted on the wrong principle by not giving sufficient weight to the applicant’s efforts at rehabilitation. The court examined whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed and if the judge had erred in their assessment of the applicant's rehabilitation efforts.
The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the gravity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court also found that the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the applicant's rehabilitation, even though it was not complete at the time of sentencing. The court emphasised that partial rehabilitation is a relevant factor but does not necessarily warrant a significantly reduced sentence. Thus, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.
In conclusion, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, affirming that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had correctly considered the applicant’s rehabilitation efforts.
Orders
Orders of the court
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.