R v Meredith - [2002] QCA 481

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Meredith [2002] QCA 481

PARTIES:

R
v
MEREDITH, Brett Damien
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 90 of 2002
DC No 104 of 2000
DC No 65 of 2002
DC No 66 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 November 2002

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2.   Allow the appeal and vary the order made as follows:

·     The two sentences of six months imprisonment ordered on 27 February 2002 be served concurrently with each other;

·     The sentences of five years imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2002 in respect of counts numbered 25 and 30 on the 30 count indictment presented that day be set aside, and in lieu thereof sentences of 18 months imprisonment imposed;

·     In all other respects the sentences of five years imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2002 be confirmed, such sentences to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the expiration of the sentences of six months imprisonment already ordered herein;

·     Those sentences totalling five years and six months imprisonment are to commence on 27 February 2002, and it is declared that the appellant had spent 191 days in pre sentence custody between 20 August 2001 and 27 February 2002, in respect of the sentence of five years imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant committed a substantial number of property offences over a considerable period of time – where applicant readily admitted his involvement in offences – where applicant was addicted to drugs at time of committing offences – where majority of offences were committed while on probation or on bail – whether sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – MAXIMUM SENTENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count for a substantial number of property offences to be served cumulatively – where learned sentencing judge also imposed such a sentence for two counts of attempted fraud contained on the same indictment – where sentences for attempted fraud exceeded the maximum available sentence of two and a half years imprisonment – whether sentence should be altered on appeal

R v Robinson [1995] QCA 131; CA No 534 of 1994, 24 March 1995, distinguished
R v Savo [1994] QCA 513; CA No 334 of 1994, 25 October 1994, distinguished
R v Whelan [1998] QCA 151; CA No 430 of 1997, 17 March 1998, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
T A Fuller for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared…

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 Meredith

Details

AGLC: R v Meredith [2002] QCA 481
Case: [2002] QCA 481
Decision Date: 8 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meredith involved the appellant, who had been convicted of a substantial number of property offences over an extended period. He admitted his involvement in the offences, which were largely committed while he was on probation or on bail, and it was noted that he was addicted to drugs at the time of committing these offences. The appellant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive given his personal circumstances. The court was required to decide whether the sentence was indeed too harsh and whether the sentences imposed for certain counts exceeded the maximum permissible term.

The court examined the sentence imposed, which was five years imprisonment for each count of the numerous property offences, to be served cumulatively. Additionally, two counts of attempted fraud were also sentenced to five years imprisonment each, which exceeded the statutory maximum of two and a half years for these offences. The appeal court had to determine if the sentences were appropriate and whether they should be altered. In considering the personal circumstances of the appellant, including his addiction and the timing of the offences in relation to his probation or bail, the court also needed to assess whether these factors warranted a different sentence.

Upon review, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal and found that the sentences were indeed excessive in certain respects. The court varied the sentence to address these concerns. The two sentences of six months imprisonment were to be served concurrently with each other. The sentences of five years imprisonment for specific counts were set aside and replaced with sentences of 18 months imprisonment. The remaining sentences of five years imprisonment were confirmed but to be served concurrently with each other and cumulatively upon the expiration of the six-month sentences. The total sentence, amounting to five years and six months, was to commence on the original sentencing date, with the appellant's pre-sentence custody time taken into account.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

2. Allow the appeal and vary the order made as follows:

· The two sentences of six months imprisonment ordered on 27 February 2002 be served concurrently with each other;

· The sentences of five years imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2002 in respect of counts numbered 25 and 30 on the 30 count indictment presented that day be set aside, and in lieu thereof sentences of 18 months imprisonment imposed;

· In all other respects the sentences of five years imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2002 be confirmed, such sentences to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the expiration of the sentences of six months imprisonment already ordered herein;

· Those sentences totalling five years and six months imprisonment are to commence on 27 February 2002, and it is declared that the appellant had spent 191 days in pre sentence custody between 20 August 2001 and 27 February 2002, in respect of the sentence of five years imprisonment.

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 Meredith [2002] QCA 481
PARTIES:	R v MEREDITH, Brett Damien (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 90 of 2002 DC No 104 of 2000 DC No 65 of 2002 DC No 66 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 November 2002
JUDGES:	McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence. 2. Allow the appeal and vary the order made as follows: · The two sentences of six months imprisonment ordered on 27 February 2002 be served concurrently with each other; · The sentences of five years imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2002 in respect of counts numbered 25 and 30 on the 30 count indictment presented that day be set aside, and in lieu thereof sentences of 18 months imprisonment imposed; · In all other respects the sentences of five years imprisonment imposed on 27 February 2002 be confirmed, such sentences to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the expiration of the sentences of six months imprisonment already ordered herein; · Those sentences totalling five years and six months imprisonment are to commence on 27 February 2002, and it is declared that the appellant had spent 191 days in pre sentence custody between 20 August 2001 and 27 February 2002, in respect of the sentence of five years imprisonment.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant committed a substantial number of property offences over a considerable period of time – where applicant readily admitted his involvement in offences – where applicant was addicted to drugs at time of committing offences – where majority of offences were committed while on probation or on bail – whether sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – MAXIMUM SENTENCE – GENERALLY – where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment on each count for a substantial number of property offences to be served cumulatively – where learned sentencing judge also imposed such a sentence for two counts of attempted fraud contained on the same indictment – where sentences for attempted fraud exceeded the maximum available sentence of two and a half years imprisonment – whether sentence should be altered on appeal R v Robinson [1995] QCA 131; CA No 534 of 1994, 24 March 1995, distinguished R v Savo [1994] QCA 513; CA No 334 of 1994, 25 October 1994, distinguished R v Whelan [1998] QCA 151; CA No 430 of 1997, 17 March 1998, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf T A Fuller for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared…