R v Mee and Boullanger - [2002] QCA 468

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Mee & Boullanger [2002] QCA 468

PARTIES:

R
v
MEE, Adam James
(applicant)
BOULLANGER, Patrick Marc
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 237 of 2002
CA No 240 of 2002
DC No 1954 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDINGS:

Sentence Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

1 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 November 2002

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

CA No 237 of 2002
           Application for leave to appeal refused.

CA No 240 of 2002
       1. Application for leave to appeal granted.
       2. Appeal allowed.
       3. The sentence be varied by ordering that the term
           of imprisonment of 5 years be suspended after 18
           months for an operational period of 5 years
           and the sentence otherwise be confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to offence of armed robbery in company – where applicant sentenced to 4 years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with operational period of 5 years – whether steps taken towards the rehabilitation of the applicant warrants the substitution of the sentence with an intensive corrective order which would assist the applicant in his rehabilitation – whether sentence imposed was within range

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – DISPARITY – CO-OFFENDERS – where appellant pleaded guilty to offence of armed robbery in company – where sentenced to 5 years imprisonment suspended after 2 years with an operational period of 5 years – where co-offender received 4 years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of 5 years – whether disparity between sentences – whether sentence within range having regard to all circumstances

R v Moss [1999] QCA 426; CA No 270 of 1999, 8 October 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

M Byrne QC for the applicant in CA No 237 of 2002
T Carmody SC for the appellant in CA No 240 of 2002
MJ Copley for respondent in CA No 237 of 2002 and CA No 240 of 2002

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant in CA No 237 of 2002 and the appellant in CA No 240 of 2002
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 237 of 2002 and CA No 240 of 2002

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Order that envelope be opened. Could I have it please, Exhibit 9?
...
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will order that the confidential material be resealed, not to be opened except by order of a Court.
...
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will invite Justice Mullins to deliver the first judgments.

MULLINS J: The…

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 Mee and Boullanger

Details

AGLC: R v Mee and Boullanger [2002] QCA 468
Case: [2002] QCA 468
Decision Date: 1 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mee and Boullanger, the applicants were convicted for their involvement in an armed robbery. They were sentenced to different terms of imprisonment, with the first applicant receiving a sentence of 4 years imprisonment suspended after 12 months and the second applicant receiving a sentence of 5 years imprisonment suspended after 2 years, both with an operational period of 5 years. The applicants sought to appeal against their sentences, with the first applicant applying for a reduction in their sentence and the second applicant arguing that their sentence was disparate to that of their co-offender. The legal issues before the court were whether the steps taken by the first applicant towards their rehabilitation warranted the substitution of their sentence with an intensive corrective order and whether the disparity in the sentences was justified. The court found that the first applicant's sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offence, and that there was no disparity between the sentences imposed on the applicants. The court dismissed the first applicant's application for leave to appeal and allowed the second applicant's application for leave to appeal, varying the sentence by ordering that the term of imprisonment be suspended after 18 months for an operational period of 5 years. The sentence was otherwise confirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

CA No 237 of 2002

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CA No 240 of 2002

1. Application for leave to appeal granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The sentence be varied by ordering that the term

of imprisonment of 5 years be suspended after 18

months for an operational period of 5 years

and the sentence otherwise be confirmed.

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 Mee & Boullanger [2002] QCA 468
PARTIES:	R v MEE, Adam James (applicant) BOULLANGER, Patrick Marc (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 237 of 2002 CA No 240 of 2002 DC No 1954 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDINGS:	Sentence Applications
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	1 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 November 2002
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	CA No 237 of 2002 Application for leave to appeal refused. CA No 240 of 2002 1. Application for leave to appeal granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. The sentence be varied by ordering that the term of imprisonment of 5 years be suspended after 18 months for an operational period of 5 years and the sentence otherwise be confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to offence of armed robbery in company – where applicant sentenced to 4 years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with operational period of 5 years – whether steps taken towards the rehabilitation of the applicant warrants the substitution of the sentence with an intensive corrective order which would assist the applicant in his rehabilitation – whether sentence imposed was within range CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – DISPARITY – CO-OFFENDERS – where appellant pleaded guilty to offence of armed robbery in company – where sentenced to 5 years imprisonment suspended after 2 years with an operational period of 5 years – where co-offender received 4 years imprisonment suspended after 12 months with an operational period of 5 years – whether disparity between sentences – whether sentence within range having regard to all circumstances R v Moss [1999] QCA 426; CA No 270 of 1999, 8 October 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	M Byrne QC for the applicant in CA No 237 of 2002 T Carmody SC for the appellant in CA No 240 of 2002 MJ Copley for respondent in CA No 237 of 2002 and CA No 240 of 2002
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant in CA No 237 of 2002 and the appellant in CA No 240 of 2002 Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent in CA No 237 of 2002 and CA No 240 of 2002