R v Norton - [1995] QCA 277

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Appeal No 62 of 1995

Brisbane
[R. v. David Stuart NORTON]

Before

Fitzgerald, P
de Jersey J
Byrne J

T H E Q U E E N
v.
DAVID STUART NORTON

(Applicant)
FITZGERALD P. DE JERSEY J.

BYRNE J.

J	udgment delivered 16/06/1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS: AUTO THEFT - professionally run, commercial enterprise; pleas of guilty, but substantial, relevant previous; 7 years imprisonment not disturbed

Counsel:	T.D. Martin for the Applicant W. Clark for the Crown
Solicitors:	Robertson O'Gorman for the Applicant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Date/s of Hearing: 05/04/1995

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 15/06/1995

The applicant, a 35 year old man, pleaded guilty in the District Court on 24 January, 1995 to a series of offences involving the dishonest treatment of motor vehicles: thirteen of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, nine of unlawful possession with a circumstance of aggravation, three of stealing and one of receiving. The offences occurred between 31 August, 1993 and 13 August, 1994. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of seven years for the unlawful possessions, seven years for the unlawful possessions with aggravation, two years for stealing and two years for receiving. He applies for leave to appeal against those sentences.

The applicant was the principal in a large scale, professional auto theft enterprise. He ran it for about 12 months. The vehicles involved included family sedans, prime movers and semi-trailers. They were stolen and "treated", including erasing identification numbers and plates and substituting new ones. The value of the property involved in the charges was $925,000. Of that, $350,000 worth was damaged or otherwise irrecoverable. The convictions arose out of an investigation by the National Crime Authority. The vehicles were located at the applicant's rural property near Toowoomba. The applicant co-operated with the police to an extent, admitting to the theft of some of the vehicles and equipment found at the property, although he declined to identify the other persons involved.

It is important to look now to the applicant's prior criminal history. In March, 1989 he was sentenced at Brisbane to two years for receiving, false pretences and the possession of a motor vehicle with intent to deprive. Two weeks after his release on parole, he committed an assault occasioning bodily harm on 20 October, 1989, for which he was in January, 1990 sentenced to six months imprisonment. After he was released from that, he went to Western Australia, where he was convicted in February, 1991 for the theft of a prime mover and trailer (valued at $200,000) committed in early April, 1990, in fact within a month of his release from prison in Queensland. He was imprisoned in Western Australia for three years. He returned to Queensland where, within months, he started committing the instant offences. By the time of the sentencing on 24 January, 1995, he had been incarcerated again to…

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 Norton

Details

AGLC: R v Norton [1995] QCA 277
Case: [1995] QCA 277
Decision Date: 16/06/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Norton, heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland, involves the applicant, David Stuart Norton, appealing against his sentence for a series of offences related to the dishonest treatment of motor vehicles. Norton pleaded guilty to thirteen counts of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, nine counts of unlawful possession with a circumstance of aggravation, three counts of stealing, and one count of receiving. The District Court sentenced him to concurrent terms of seven years for the unlawful possessions, seven years for the unlawful possessions with aggravation, two years for stealing, and two years for receiving, commencing from 24 January 1995. Norton's appeal against these sentences was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were appropriate in the circumstances. Norton's counsel argued that the base term of ten years, from which the sentences were discounted due to pleas of guilty and other mitigating factors, was beyond the range of imprisonment typically open for such offences. They referenced several cases with similar circumstances to support their argument. The court had to consider whether the sentences were within the appropriate range for the crimes committed, given Norton's extensive criminal history and the nature of his criminal enterprise.

The Court of Appeal found that while the initial base term of ten years might have been considered stringent, the effective sentence imposed by the District Court, considering the commencement date of the sentences, was six years. This term was within the appropriate range for the gravity of the crimes and Norton's criminal history. The court emphasized that the sentences reflected the serious nature of Norton's criminal activities, which involved a large-scale, professional auto theft enterprise, and his repeated reoffending despite previous incarcerations. Therefore, the Court of Appeal upheld the District Court's sentencing decision.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Norton's application for leave to appeal, confirming the sentences imposed by the District Court. The effective six-year term, taking into account the date from which the sentences commenced, was deemed appropriate for the crimes committed and Norton's criminal history.

Orders