R v Pahoff

Case [2002] QCA 525


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pahoff [2002] QCA 525

PARTIES:

R
v
PAHOFF, Aaron Douglas

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 286 of 2002

DC No 365 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

2 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ

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 – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant convicted of one count of breaking and entering and stealing, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of obstructing police – where conviction recorded for dangerous operation of a motor vehicle only – whether recording of conviction outside sentencing discretion – whether manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12(2)

R v Briese; ex parte A-G [1998] 1 Qd R 487; considered

COUNSEL:

C J McGrath for the applicant (pro bono)

R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

PHILIPPIDES J:  This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence imposed upon the applicant upon his plea of guilty to one count of breaking and entering a motor vehicle and stealing, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and one count of obstructing police.

The applicant was sentenced to 18 months' probation, ordered to perform unpaid community service for 200 hours and ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $95.  A conviction was recorded in relation to the offence of dangerous driving only and the applicant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for 12 months.  The applicant seeks to appeal the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive in that a conviction was recorded.

The circumstances of the offences were as follows.  On 23 October 2001 at about 10.30 p.m., the applicant broke the window of a locked vehicle which had been left at a car park at Forest Lake, Brisbane, and stole a car stereo from the vehicle.  This constituted the offence of breaking, entering and stealing.  The theft was observed by three men who pursued the applicant, who drove off in his mother's vehicle.

The three had noticed the applicant acting suspiciously.  They pursued him over a distance of approximately six kilometres.  The applicant was observed to travel at speeds of up to 150 kilometres per hour along main arterial roads and through built-up areas.  He crossed double white lines, drove on the wrong side of the road several times and, on one occasion, drove with his lights off. 

The applicant accepted in his police interview that he had driven at speeds of up to 120 to 140 kilometres per hour.  The applicant's driving was such that the persons who were following him and who were…

Continue reading R v Pahoff

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pahoff [2002] QCA 525
Case
[2002] QCA 525
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, the applicant, Pahoff, sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant was convicted of breaking and entering and stealing, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, and obstructing police. However, the court only recorded a conviction for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The applicant contended that the recording of a conviction for this offence was outside the sentencing discretion of the court, and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the legal issues concerning the scope of sentencing discretion and whether the recording of a conviction was outside this discretion. The court noted that the sentencing judge had considered all the charges and offences, and the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's criminal history. The court held that the recording of a conviction for the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle was within the sentencing discretion of the court, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into account all relevant factors, and that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the applicant had a significant criminal history, and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences committed. The court held that there were no grounds for allowing an appeal against sentence.

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.