Legal Research
Cases
R v Parker

R v Parker

Case [2007] QCA 22 5 February 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Parker [2007] QCA 22

PARTIES:

R
v
PARKER, Tracey Leigh
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 298 of 2006
DC No 374 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EX REMPORE ON:

5 February 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal against sentence allowed and sentence imposed set aside.
2. In place of the sentence imposed below; in relation to Count 3, the applicant be sentenced to five years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years; in relation to each of Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 the applicant is sentenced to three years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years; and in relation to Count 8 the applicant is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

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 - where applicant pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud, two counts of stealing as a servant, one count of dishonest application of a computer and one count of using a computer with intent to commit an indictable offence - where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether sentencing judge erred in law by imposing single sentence of imprisonment for all counts

R v Adams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2006] QCA 312; CA No 115 of 2006, 25 August 2006, distinguished

R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503; [1998] QCA 60, applied

R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, distinguished
R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, distinguished

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

COUNSEL:

C J Callaghan (sol) for the applicant
D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Keane will deliver his reasons first.

KEANE JA: On 11 October 2006 the applicant was convicted, on her own plea of guilty, of six counts of fraud, two counts of stealing as a servant, one count of dishonest application of a computer and one count of using a computer with intent to commit an indictable offence. She was sentenced to five years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her sentence on the grounds that the sentences were "manifestly excessive"; and that the learned sentencing judge "erred in…

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 Parker

Details

AGLC: R v Parker [2007] QCA 22
Case: [2007] QCA 22
Decision Date: 5 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Parker, appealed against his sentence following his conviction on various counts of fraud, theft, and computer misuse. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The key issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and whether the judge erred in law by imposing a single sentence of imprisonment for all counts.

The court examined the sentencing principles outlined in relevant statutes and previous case law. It noted that the trial judge had not sufficiently differentiated between the various offences and their respective seriousness. The court found that the imposition of a single sentence for all counts was inappropriate and that the overall sentence was excessive, particularly in light of the applicant’s guilty plea and early admission of guilt. The court also took into account the need for deterrence and the protection of the community.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal against sentence and set aside the original sentence. In its place, the court imposed varying sentences for each count, reflecting the seriousness of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence. The new sentences ranged from three years to five years imprisonment, with some sentences to be suspended after a specified period.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal against sentence allowed and sentence imposed set aside.

2. In place of the sentence imposed below; in relation to Count 3, the applicant be sentenced to five years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years; in relation to each of Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 the applicant is sentenced to three years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years; and in relation to Count 8 the applicant is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Parker [2007] QCA 22

Most Recent Citation

R v Om [2007] QCA 101

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

R v Wood
[2014] QCA 256 Para 1

…It was noted that comparable sentences provided to the court involved offenders who pleaded guilty ( R v Parker [2007] QCA 22, R v Sommerfeld [2009] QCA 333 and R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 312).…
R v Pinnuck
[2014] QCA 189 Para 1

…essive. Reliance was also placed upon R v Yarwood [10] and R v Parker .[11] [10] R v Yarwood [2011] QCA 367; (2011) 220 A Crim R 457. [11] R v Parker [2007] QCA 22.…
R v Williams
[2014] QCA 114 Para 1

…tencing decisions, particularly R v Whiting ,[35] R v Parker [36] and R v Adams; ex-parte Attorney-General of Queensland .[37] [35][2013] QCA 18. [36][2007] QCA 22. [37][2006] QCA 312.…
R v Alwis
[2012] QCA 308 Para 1

…le cases, R v Parker ;[16] R v Allen [17] and R v Gourley ,[18] supported a sentence of five years imprisonment with no early parole eligibility. [16][2007] QCA 22. [17][2005] QCA 73. [18][2003] QCA 307.…
R v Yarwood
[2011] QCA 367 Para 1

…was described as persistent and self-indulgent. The court interfered in the sentence to correct an error but did not alter the actual penalty. [55][2007] QCA 22.…
Gray v Eustace
[2010] QDC 377

…in respect of each count if a sentence of imprisonment is being imposed (see R v Parker [2007] QCA 22).…
Motteram v Toohey
[2010] QDC 180

…t is necessary that a sentence of imprisonment be imposed in respect of each offence when a sentence of imprisonment is being imposed: see R v Parker [2007] QCA 22.…
R v Fidler
[2010] QCA 25 Para 1

…n Attorney's appeal), and five years suspended after twenty months with an operational period of five years. [3][2003] QCA 307. [4][2006] QCA 312. [5][2007] QCA 22.…
R v Fuller
[2009] QCA 195 Para 1

…ntence was certainly not manifestly excessive. [17]The appellant’s counsel cited R v Hancox [2006] QCA 333, R v Adams [2006] QCA 312 and R v Parker [2007] QCA 22. The respondent’s counsel cited R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307.…
Knibbs v R
[2008] QDC 288 Para 1

…t be remembered that it is necessary for a sentencing Court to impose an appropriate sentence in respect of each charge: see, for example, R v Parker [2007] QCA 22.…
R v Ward
[2008] QCA 222

…e A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 312, considered R v Allen [2005] QCA 73, considered R v Hearnden [2002] QCA 258, considered R v Parker [2007] QCA 22, considered R v Powell , unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, Qld, CA No 90 of 1989, 1 June 1989, considered R v Power [1998] QCA 32, considered R v Ma’afu , unreported, Co…
R v Tindale
[2008] QCA 24 Para 1

…tencing discretion. The amount misappropriated there was $302,873, less than that involved in the present case. As Keane JA pointed out in R v Parker [2007] QCA 22, R v Spalding (like R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307) was a case in which the offending was shown to have been precipitated by psychiatric or emotional inf…
R v Om
[2007] QCA 101 Para 1

…e for all the offences to which the applicant pleaded guilty. That course was erroneous.[3] [3] R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503 at 504; R v Parker [2007] QCA 22.…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2006] QCA 312

…cessive - whether sentencing judge erred in law by imposing single sentence of imprisonment for all counts R v Adams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2006] QCA 312; CA No 115 of 2006, 25 August 2006, distinguished R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503; [1998] QCA 60, applied R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of…
R v Gourley
[2003] QCA 307

…General (Qld) [2006] QCA 312; CA No 115 of 2006, 25 August 2006, distinguished R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503; [1998] QCA 60, applied R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, distinguished R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, distinguished Penalties and Sentence…
R v Spalding
[2002] QCA 538

…ed R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503; [1998] QCA 60, applied R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, distinguished R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, distinguished Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) COUNSEL: C J Callaghan (sol) for the applicant D Meredith f…
R v Crofts
[1998] QCA 60

…ounts R v Adams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2006] QCA 312; CA No 115 of 2006, 25 August 2006, distinguished R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503; [1998] QCA 60, applied R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, distinguished R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002,…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention

CITATION:	R v Parker [2007] QCA 22
PARTIES:	R v PARKER, Tracey Leigh (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 298 of 2006 DC No 374 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX REMPORE ON:	5 February 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Keane JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted, appeal against sentence allowed and sentence imposed set aside. 2. In place of the sentence imposed below; in relation to Count 3, the applicant be sentenced to five years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years; in relation to each of Counts 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 and 10 the applicant is sentenced to three years imprisonment to be suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years; and in relation to Count 8 the applicant is sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
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 - where applicant pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud, two counts of stealing as a servant, one count of dishonest application of a computer and one count of using a computer with intent to commit an indictable offence - where applicant sentenced to five years imprisonment suspended after 21 months for an operational period of five years - whether sentence manifestly excessive - whether sentencing judge erred in law by imposing single sentence of imprisonment for all counts R v Adams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2006] QCA 312; CA No 115 of 2006, 25 August 2006, distinguished R v Crofts (1998) 100 A Crim R 503; [1998] QCA 60, applied R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, distinguished R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, distinguished Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
COUNSEL:	C J Callaghan (sol) for the applicant D Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent