R v Parks; ex parte - [2002] QCA 533

[2002] QCA 533

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
HELMAN J
PHILIPPIDES J

CA No 329 of 2002

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL PARKS Respondent
and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 05/12/2002

JUDGMENT

MR R MARTIN (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the appellant

MR A W MOYNIHAN (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Pleading guilty to attempting to procure a murder the respondent, then 44 years old, and 43 when he offended, was sentenced to five years' imprisonment suspended after 10 months. He had been on remand for something over 10 months and the sentence may therefore be seen as otherwise amounting to five years' imprisonment suspended after approximately 21 months.

The respondent attempted to procure the murder of his former de facto partner. They had lived together for seven years. They had a child by their own relationship and she had three children from a former relationship. The complainant left the respondent on the 7th October 2001. Soon after that the respondent began communicating with an acquaintance, speaking about hiring someone to kill the complainant.

Within the space of a month the respondent was organising for the complainant to be murdered. The acquaintance arranged for an undercover police officer to pose as the assassin. Conversations between the respondent and that undercover agent were tape recorded. They demonstrate that over about 10 days of regular contact with the agent the respondent showed a clear intent that his former partner be killed.

There was discussion about when and how the murder would be accomplished and the consideration to be paid. It was premeditated and calculated. So far as the respondent indicated any reluctance it concerned timing not the accomplishment of his objective.

No physical harm was done to the complainant. Accordingly, it is for the objective of securing the murder primarily for which the respondent fell to be punished. The appellant, the Honourable the Attorney-General submits that it was a coldly calculated plan for an execution. The conduct had been persisted in for, at least, 10 days and contemplated over preceding weeks. If successful not only would the complainant's life have been lost, but in addition four children would have been left without a mother. All of those observations are warranted.

The learned Judge related the crime to the respondent's difficulty in accepting the break down of his relationship with the complainant. At the time the respondent was an uncontrolled epileptic and the Judge accepted that he was "not acting as rationally as perhaps he might otherwise have acted" which I note was a rather tentatively expressed observation.

There was nothing of particular concern in the respondent's prior criminal history. He had served 315 days in pre-sentence custody which is a little more than 10 months. The learned Judge considered a number of cases and especially Jegodtka, Court of Appeal 273 of 2000. He considered Jegodtka a materially similar case and worked from the sentence which in that case was not disturbed…

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 Parks; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v Parks; ex parte [2002] QCA 533
Case: [2002] QCA 533
Decision Date: 05/12/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the respondent, Christopher Michael Parks, was convicted of attempting to procure the murder of his former de facto partner. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, suspended after 10 months, with credit for 10 months spent in pre-sentence custody. The appeal was brought by the Attorney-General of Queensland, who argued that the sentence was too lenient.

The primary legal issue in this case was whether the sentence imposed by the primary judge was manifestly inadequate. The court considered whether the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence, the premeditation and persistence of the crime, and the potential consequences if it had been successful.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The court considered that the respondent's crime was premeditated and calculated, with a clear intent to kill. The court noted that the respondent's crime could have resulted in the death of the complainant and left four children without a mother. The court also considered that the respondent's plea of guilty was a mitigating factor. The court found that a sentence of eight years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for early consideration of parole, was appropriate. The court also declared that the respondent had served 315 days imprisonment under the new sentence, being his pre-sentence custody from 14 November 2001 to 26 September 2002. The appeal was allowed, the penalty imposed below was set aside, and the respondent was ordered to be imprisoned for eight years with a recommendation that the respondent be eligible for consideration for post prison community based release after three years.

Orders