R v Norris - [2006] QCA 376

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Norris [2006] QCA 376

PARTIES:

R
v
NORRIS, Kenneth John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 196 of 2006
DC No 49 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gladstone

DELIVERED ON:

29 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA and Jones J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to 17 counts of fraud, three counts of fraud in which the yield from the dishonesty was of a greater value than $5,000, one count of entering premises and committing an offence, one count of attempted fraud, three counts of impersonation, six counts of forgery, six counts of uttering, one count of possession of a dangerous drug, and to a summary offence of possessing utensils used to smoke a dangerous drug – applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment – lengthy criminal history – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6, cited
R v Alexander [2004] QCA 11; CA No 331 of 2003, 13 February 2004, considered
R v Gee [1998] QCA 321; CA No 247 of 1998, 18 September 1998, considered
R v Jones [1998] 1 Qd R 672; [1997] QCA 132, considered
R v Pearson-Harding [1999] QCA 92; CA No 377 of 1998, 26 March 1999, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid (Queensland) for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

JERRARD JA: On 19 June 2006 Mr Norris pleaded guilty to 17 counts of fraud, three counts of fraud in which the yield from the dishonesty was of a greater value than $5,000, one count of entering premises and committing an offence, one count of attempted fraud, three counts of impersonation, six counts of forgery, six counts of uttering, one count of possession of a dangerous drug, and to a summary offence of possessing utensils used to smoke a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment and has applied for leave to appeal against that sentence, complaining of its severity.

Mr Norris has a lengthy history of convictions for offences, mostly of dishonesty, and of being imprisoned for those. On 16 August 1983 he was sentenced to six months imprisonment on four counts of forgery and four counts of uttering, and one month later on 16 September 1983 sentenced to a total of three years imprisonment for an…

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 Norris

Details

AGLC: R v Norris [2006] QCA 376
Case: [2006] QCA 376
Decision Date: 29 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Norris, appealed against his sentence imposed following his conviction on multiple counts of fraud, impersonation, forgery, and other related offences. The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment, a term he deemed manifestly excessive given the totality of the circumstances. The appeal was lodged against the sentence, which was deemed disproportionate by the applicant, particularly in light of his lengthy criminal history.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences committed, as well as to the applicant's personal history, which included a series of prior convictions. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in arriving at the sentence.

The court thoroughly examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing relevant to the case. The court concluded that the trial judge had exercised his discretion appropriately in determining the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had adequately considered the relevant factors in arriving at the sentence. The court rejected the applicant's contention that the sentence was disproportionate, affirming that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v Norris [2006] QCA 376
PARTIES:	R v NORRIS, Kenneth John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 196 of 2006 DC No 49 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gladstone
DELIVERED ON:	29 September 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 September 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard and Keane JJA and Jones J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to 17 counts of fraud, three counts of fraud in which the yield from the dishonesty was of a greater value than $5,000, one count of entering premises and committing an offence, one count of attempted fraud, three counts of impersonation, six counts of forgery, six counts of uttering, one count of possession of a dangerous drug, and to a summary offence of possessing utensils used to smoke a dangerous drug – applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment – lengthy criminal history – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6, cited R v Alexander [2004] QCA 11; CA No 331 of 2003, 13 February 2004, considered R v Gee [1998] QCA 321; CA No 247 of 1998, 18 September 1998, considered R v Jones [1998] 1 Qd R 672; [1997] QCA 132, considered R v Pearson-Harding [1999] QCA 92; CA No 377 of 1998, 26 March 1999, considered
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid (Queensland) for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent