SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v McKinless [2004] QCA 280
PARTIES:
R
v
McKINLESS, Brendon Donald(applicant)
FILE NO/S:
CA No 140 of 2004
DC No 138 of 2004DC No 946 of 2004
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
4 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
4 August 2004
JUDGES:
Davies JA, McPherson JA, Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:
Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – BREAKING, ENTERING AND STEALING – SENTENCING – whether sentence manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: On 23 April 2004 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court at Brisbane to serve a term of six years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two years. This is an application for leave to appeal against that sentence.
There were two indictments before the sentencing Judge containing charges of 21 offences committed during a seven month period between August 2002 and March 2003. On the ten count indictment the applicant pleaded guilty to and was sentenced for four counts of entering premises and stealing (four years each), two counts of entering premises with intent (four years each), stealing (one year), receiving (six months) and fraud (six months).
On the 11 count indictment to which the applicant pleaded guilty ex officio, the applicant was sentenced for six counts of entering premises and stealing (four years each), two counts of break, enter and steal (six years each), unlawful use of a motor vehicle (two years), a negligent act causing harm (12 months) and attempted fraud (three months).
In addition the applicant pleaded guilty to the following summary offences, unlicensed driving (six months), obstructing police (six months), breach of bail (six months), possession of a pipe (six months) and failure to take care of a syringe (six months).
The sentencing Judge ordered all of the sentences to be served concurrently but made a recommendation for parole after two years. A declaration was also made that 220 days of pre-sentence custody had been served by the applicant.
The applicant was arrested on 19 November 2002 for counts 2 to 5 on the 10 count indictment and then given bail. While on bail the applicant committed counts 7 to 10 on that indictment and all of the counts on the ex officio indictment. The applicant had previously been sentenced in the District Court on 20 July 2001 for three counts of entering premises with intent, two counts of breaking, entering and stealing and one count of entering premises and stealing. A sentence of 18 months imprisonment to be suspended after serving 182 days with an operational period of two years was imposed for those offences.
All of the offences for…
Continue reading R v McKinless
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v McKinless [2004] QCA 280
- Case
- [2004] QCA 280
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly excessive. The court was required to examine the severity of the sentence in relation to the gravity of the crimes committed, taking into account relevant legal principles and precedents. This included an assessment of whether the sentence departed from established sentencing practices and principles, and whether the punishment was disproportionate to the offence.
The court meticulously reviewed the evidence, the circumstances of the offence, and the sentence handed down by the lower court. It considered the defendant's criminal history, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the impact on the victims. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the punishment was proportionate to the crimes committed and aligned with established sentencing principles. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.