R v Parish - [2012] QCA 112

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Parish [2012] QCA 112

PARTIES:

R
v
PARISH, Jemima Elizabeth
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 320 of 2011
DC No 1284 of 2011
DC No 1285 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2012

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Mullins and Ann Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.   Sentence varied by deleting “27 October 2012” and substituting “27 June 2012” as the date fixed for the applicant’s release on parole.

4.   The sentence imposed at first instance is otherwise confirmed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud, and two counts of passing valueless cheques – where the applicant was sentenced on each of the fraud counts to three years’ imprisonment with a parole release date fixed after serving 12 months – where the applicant suffered from a psychiatric condition at the time of offending – where the applicant’s ability to understand the consequences of the offending conduct was mildly impaired – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the length and structure of the sentence took account of the applicant’s psychiatric condition

R v Eveleigh [2009] QCA 257, considered
R v Hearnden[2002] QCA 258, considered
R v Jeffree[2010] QCA 47, considered
R v Lawrie [2008] QCA 97, considered
R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 19, considered
R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2004] QCA 169, considered
R v Yarwood[2011] QCA 367, considered

COUNSEL:

G M McGuire for the applicant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guest Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Mullins J’s reasons for granting the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowing the appeal. I agree with her Honour’s proposed orders.

MULLINS J: On 28 October 2011 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and one count of fraud as a director, of property subject to a direction, to the value of $30,000 or more in the District Court. At the same time the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of passing valueless cheques that were on a separate indictment. On each of the fraud charges the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment and given a fixed parole release date of 27 October 2012, after serving 12 months in prison. On each of the passing valueless cheques offences, the applicant was sentenced to a concurrent term of imprisonment of two months.

The applicant applies for…

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 Parish

Details

AGLC: R v Parish [2012] QCA 112
Case: [2012] QCA 112
Decision Date: 24 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Parish involved the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud and two counts of passing valueless cheques. The applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each of the fraud counts, with a parole release date fixed after serving 12 months. The applicant's psychiatric condition was a factor at the time of the offending, mildly impairing their understanding of the consequences of their actions. The applicant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and inadequately took into account their psychiatric condition.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the length and structure of the sentence appropriately considered the applicant's psychiatric condition. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge did not sufficiently consider their psychiatric condition in determining the sentence. The prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, as it did not adequately reflect the mitigating factor of the applicant's psychiatric condition. The court held that the length and structure of the sentence did not sufficiently account for the applicant's psychiatric state, which impaired their understanding of the consequences of their actions. The court varied the sentence by changing the parole release date to allow for an earlier release on parole. The sentence otherwise remained confirmed.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal. The sentence was varied by changing the parole release date to 27 June 2012. The court confirmed the rest of the sentence imposed at first instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2. Appeal against sentence allowed.

3. Sentence varied by deleting “27 October 2012” and substituting “27 June 2012” as the date fixed for the applicant’s release on parole.

4. The sentence imposed at first instance is otherwise confirmed.

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 Parish [2012] QCA 112
PARTIES:	R v PARISH, Jemima Elizabeth (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 320 of 2011 DC No 1284 of 2011 DC No 1285 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 April 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2012
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Mullins and Ann Lyons JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted. 2. Appeal against sentence allowed. 3. Sentence varied by deleting “27 October 2012” and substituting “27 June 2012” as the date fixed for the applicant’s release on parole. 4. The sentence imposed at first instance is otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud, and two counts of passing valueless cheques – where the applicant was sentenced on each of the fraud counts to three years’ imprisonment with a parole release date fixed after serving 12 months – where the applicant suffered from a psychiatric condition at the time of offending – where the applicant’s ability to understand the consequences of the offending conduct was mildly impaired – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the length and structure of the sentence took account of the applicant’s psychiatric condition R v Eveleigh [2009] QCA 257, considered R v Hearnden[2002] QCA 258, considered R v Jeffree[2010] QCA 47, considered R v Lawrie [2008] QCA 97, considered R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 19, considered R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2004] QCA 169, considered R v Yarwood[2011] QCA 367, considered
COUNSEL:	G M McGuire for the applicant B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guest Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent