R v Pacey - [2005] QCA 203

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pacey [2005] QCA 203

PARTIES:

R
v
PACEY, Warrick Lyall
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 63 of 2005
DC No 2911 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

10 June 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2005

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mullins 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 refused

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 perjury – sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after serving six months with operational period of two years – applicant provided a written statement and oral evidence at committal hearing alleging his friend, Bartlett, committed the offence of armed robbery – one year later, the applicant admitted in a police interview that he had committed the armed robbery and given false evidence against Bartlett – whether the sentenced imposed for perjury charge was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 123, s 124
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9

R v Back [1992] QCA 409; CA No 289 of 1992, 12 November 1992, considered
R v Coombes [2003] QCA 388; CA No 148 of 2003, 3 September 2003, applied
R v Evans [1996] QCA 553; CA No 148 of 1996, 9 July 1996, considered
R v Hunter; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 97; CA No 380 of 1999, 31 March 2000, considered
R v Ozdemir; ex parte Attorney-General [1993] QCA 463; CA No 361 of 1993, 22 November 1993, applied
R v Smith; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 390; CA No 104 of 2000, 25 September 2000, considered
R v Triantafillopoulas; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 336; CA No 188 of 1999, 19 August 1999, applied
R v Wood; ex parte Attorney-General CA No 271 of 1991, 28 November 1991, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan for the applicant
C W Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

WILLIAMS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after serving six months with an operational period of two years, imposed on the applicant after he pleaded guilty to perjury. The background circumstances are somewhat unusual and need to be set out in some detail.

The applicant was born on 17 January 1986 and was thus just short of his 17th birthday when on 7 January 2003 he was involved in an incident in the Southbank Parklands. On that date a young man named Batley, aged 15 years, was walking with a male friend named Hunt through the Southbank Parklands. At…

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 Pacey

Details

AGLC: R v Pacey [2005] QCA 203
Case: [2005] QCA 203
Decision Date: 10 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pacey involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to the offence of perjury. He was sentenced to two years imprisonment, with a suspended sentence after serving six months, and an operational period of two years. The applicant had initially provided a written statement and oral evidence at a committal hearing, alleging that his friend, Bartlett, had committed the offence of armed robbery. However, one year later, the applicant admitted in a police interview that he had actually committed the armed robbery and had given false evidence against Bartlett. The applicant sought to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues in this case focused on the appropriateness of the sentence imposed for the offence of perjury. The court needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's guilty plea, the circumstances of the offence, and any relevant sentencing principles. The court was also required to consider the impact of the applicant's admissions and the circumstances surrounding the false evidence provided.

The court rejected the applicant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. It found that the sentence was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence of perjury. The court emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court also considered the circumstances of the case, including the impact of the false evidence on the original proceedings and the subsequent admission of guilt by the applicant. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant an appeal.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant an appeal. The applicant's sentence of two years imprisonment, suspended after serving six months with an operational period of two years, remained in effect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Pacey [2005] QCA 203
PARTIES:	R v PACEY, Warrick Lyall (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 63 of 2005 DC No 2911 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	10 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2005
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Mullins 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 refused
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 perjury – sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after serving six months with operational period of two years – applicant provided a written statement and oral evidence at committal hearing alleging his friend, Bartlett, committed the offence of armed robbery – one year later, the applicant admitted in a police interview that he had committed the armed robbery and given false evidence against Bartlett – whether the sentenced imposed for perjury charge was manifestly excessive Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 123, s 124 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9 R v Back [1992] QCA 409; CA No 289 of 1992, 12 November 1992, considered R v Coombes [2003] QCA 388; CA No 148 of 2003, 3 September 2003, applied R v Evans [1996] QCA 553; CA No 148 of 1996, 9 July 1996, considered R v Hunter; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 97; CA No 380 of 1999, 31 March 2000, considered R v Ozdemir; ex parte Attorney-General [1993] QCA 463; CA No 361 of 1993, 22 November 1993, applied R v Smith; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 390; CA No 104 of 2000, 25 September 2000, considered R v Triantafillopoulas; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 336; CA No 188 of 1999, 19 August 1999, applied R v Wood; ex parte Attorney-General CA No 271 of 1991, 28 November 1991, considered
COUNSEL:	A W Moynihan for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent