R v Nelson-Adams - [2018] QCA 26

[2018] QCA 26

COURT OF APPEAL

SOFRONOFF P
PHILIPPIDES JA
BODDICE J

CA No 212 of 2017
DC No 1718 of 2017
DC No 762 of 2017
DC No 1859 of 2017

THE QUEEN

NELSON-ADAMS, Jamie Christopher Applicant

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 8 MARCH 2018

JUDGMENT

SOFRONOFF P: Justice Boddice will deliver the first judgment.

BODDICE J: Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams makes application for leave to appeal an effective head sentence of four years imprisonment imposed on 24 August 2017. The sole ground of appeal, if leave is granted, is that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

On 26 July 2017, a jury found the applicant guilty of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12. The jury found the applicant not guilty of five other counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 under 12. On 24 August 2017, the applicant was sentenced in respect of that offence and three further offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty. Those offences were attempted stealing from the person, kidnapping and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. At the same time, the applicant pleaded guilty to two summary charges, being one of contravening a direction or requirement of police, and one of assault or obstructing a police officer.

The sentencing judge sentenced the applicant to 15 months imprisonment in respect of the indecent treatment count, 15 months imprisonment in respect of the attempted stealing count, four years imprisonment in respect of the kidnapping count, and four years imprisonment in respect of the unlawful use of the motor vehicle count. The applicant was sentenced to three months imprisonment in respect of the “assault or obstructing a police officer charge” and convicted but not further punished in respect of the “contravention of a direction or requirement” charge. All sentences were to be served concurrently. The sentencing judge declared 415 days the applicant had served in pre-sentence custody from 5 July 2016 to 23 August 2017 as time served in respect of those sentences. Allowing for that time and the applicant’s pleas of guilty, the sentencing judge set the applicant’s parole eligibility date at 5 March 2018.

In imposing those sentences, the sentencing judge observed, first, that the indecent treatment offence fell very much at the lower end of the offences dealt with by the Court. Second, the applicant was convicted of that offence following a trial by jury, but at the same trial the applicant was acquitted of five other counts of indecent treatment, and the fact he went to trial should be seen in that context. Third, that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the remaining counts and summary charges, although in the context of an extremely strong case. Fourth, although there was not any element of real remorse or a desire to assist in the administration of justice, the applicant was still entitled to some benefit for his pleas of guilty.

The indecent treatment offence was committed on 3 July 2016 shortly after the applicant had been released on parole…

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 Nelson-Adams

Details

AGLC: R v Nelson-Adams [2018] QCA 26
Case: [2018] QCA 26
Decision Date: 8 MARCH 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Nelson-Adams involves an application by Jamie Christopher Nelson-Adams for leave to appeal the sentence of four years imprisonment imposed on him. The applicant was found guilty of one count of indecent treatment of a child under 16, as well as other charges such as kidnapping, attempted stealing, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The applicant pleaded guilty to the remaining charges and summary offences. The sentencing judge imposed a four-year head sentence, to be served concurrently with the other sentences, and set the applicant's parole eligibility date at 5 March 2018.

The legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the applicant's extensive criminal history, lack of remorse, and the serious nature of the offences committed. The applicant argued that there were additional factors that should have been taken into account, and that he was promised a sentence of less than three years. The applicant submitted that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and that leave to appeal should be granted.

The court considered the applicant's extensive criminal history, which included multiple prior convictions for property related offences and for offences of violence. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences committed, particularly the kidnapping offence, which involved the applicant threatening the victim with a knife and requiring her to drive to Southport. The court noted that the applicant's actions had a devastating impact on the victims and their families, and that the sentence imposed was intended to send an appropriate message of deterrence.

The court held that an effective sentence of four years imprisonment was well within a proper exercise of the sentencing discretion. The court found that the applicant's criminal history and the serious nature of the offences committed supported a sentence of this length. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was lenient, having regard to all of the offending the applicant committed shortly after he was released on parole. The court found no basis to conclude that the imposition of an effective head sentence of four years imprisonment involved a misapplication of principle, or has resulted in a sentence that is plainly unjust.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that there was no basis for it to intervene on a ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The order of the Court was that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

Orders