R v MDA - [2015] QDC 345

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MDA [2015] QDC 345

PARTIES:

The Queen

(prosecution)

v

MDA

(defendant)

FILE NO/S:

1206/15

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 November 2015 (ex tempore)

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 November 2015

JUDGE:

Dearden DCJ

ORDER:

The defendant is sentenced to 6 ½ years for the offence of burglary by breaking and stealing (indictment no. 1206/2015) and shorter concurrent sentences for other offences identified in paragraph 15; ordered to serve concurrently the outstanding period of 2 years and 8 months of a suspended sentence imposed 19 February 2014 for the offence of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break. Declaration of 537 days pre-sentence custody as time served in respect of the sentences

CATCHWORDS:
CASES:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – where defendant pleaded guilty to various property offences – where offending breached a suspended sentence – where the defendant had declarable pre-sentence custody – where defendant provided a relapse prevention plan.

R v Bryant [2007] QCA 247
R v Meredith [2002] QCA 481
R v Russell [2005] QCA 392
R v Weston [1997] QCA 260

COUNSEL:

M Connolly for the prosecution

R O’Gorman for the defendant.

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution

Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant.

Thank you. Stand up, please, Mr MDA. Before I pass sentence, is there anything that you want to say about any aspect of this? You’ve pleaded guilty today to one count of burglary by breaking and stealing on indictment 1206 of 2015, a single summary offence of receiving tainted property and then these further summary offences: two charges of enter dwelling and commit indictable offence, three charges of breach of bail condition, one charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel, two charges of wilful damage, one charge of dangerous operation of a vehicle, three charges of assault or obstruct police officer, one charge of failing to stop a motor vehicle, one charge of driving without a licence disqualified by court order, two charges of unlawful use of motor vehicles, aircraft of vessels used or intended for indictable offence and one charge of possess tainted property.

The offending all breaches the sentence imposed by Judge Butler in the Brisbane District Court on 19 February 2014 for an offence of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break for which you were sentenced to three and a-half years to be suspended for an operational period of four years after serving 10 months. And that was a break and enter of a Prouds Jewellery store in Warwick where a sum of nearly $90,000 worth of property was taken. Your offending, according to the list of summary offences which is exhibit 10, commenced on the 10th of March 2014. By my calculations, you must have got out of jail after Judge Butler’s sentence by about the end of February, so you were committing offences within about five and a-half…

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 MDA

Details

AGLC: R v MDA [2015] QDC 345
Case: [2015] QDC 345
Decision Date: 26 November 2015 (ex tempore)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v MDA involved the defendant who pleaded guilty to various property offences, including burglary by breaking and stealing. The defendant had previously breached a suspended sentence and had spent time in custody prior to sentencing. The case was heard in the relevant court where the legal issues centred on the appropriate sentence for the defendant given his criminal history and the factors that should be considered in determining the sentence.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and any other relevant factors. The court considered the defendant's pre-sentence custody, his relapse prevention plan, and the breach of a suspended sentence. The court also had to consider the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

In determining the sentence, the court noted that the defendant had a history of offending and had breached a suspended sentence. However, the court also took into account the defendant's pre-sentence custody and his relapse prevention plan. The court considered that the defendant's offending was serious and warranted a significant sentence, but also noted that the defendant had taken steps to address his offending behaviour. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to 6 ½ years for the offence of burglary by breaking and stealing, and shorter concurrent sentences for other offences. The court also ordered the defendant to serve concurrently the outstanding period of 2 years and 8 months of a suspended sentence imposed for the offence of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break. The court declared the 537 days pre-sentence custody as time served in respect of the sentences.

Orders

Orders of the court

The defendant is sentenced to 6 ½ years for the offence of burglary by breaking and stealing (indictment no. 1206/2015) and shorter concurrent sentences for other offences identified in paragraph 15; ordered to serve concurrently the outstanding period of 2 years and 8 months of a suspended sentence imposed 19 February 2014 for the offence of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break. Declaration of 537 days pre-sentence custody as time served in respect of the sentences

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 MDA [2015] QDC 345
PARTIES:	The Queen (prosecution) v MDA (defendant)
FILE NO/S:	1206/15
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 November 2015 (ex tempore)
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 November 2015
JUDGE:	Dearden DCJ
ORDER:	The defendant is sentenced to 6 ½ years for the offence of burglary by breaking and stealing (indictment no. 1206/2015) and shorter concurrent sentences for other offences identified in paragraph 15; ordered to serve concurrently the outstanding period of 2 years and 8 months of a suspended sentence imposed 19 February 2014 for the offence of enter premises and commit indictable offence by break. Declaration of 537 days pre-sentence custody as time served in respect of the sentences
CATCHWORDS: CASES:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – where defendant pleaded guilty to various property offences – where offending breached a suspended sentence – where the defendant had declarable pre-sentence custody – where defendant provided a relapse prevention plan. R v Bryant [2007] QCA 247 R v Meredith [2002] QCA 481 R v Russell [2005] QCA 392 R v Weston [1997] QCA 260
COUNSEL:	M Connolly for the prosecution R O’Gorman for the defendant.
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the prosecution Legal Aid Queensland for the defendant.