R v Paton - [2011] QCA 34

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Paton [2011] QCA 34

PARTIES:

R
v
PATON, Nathan Richard
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 177 of 2010
DC No 980 of 2009
DC No 1750 of 2009
DC No 1833 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 February 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTEREFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of burglary and stealing offences and offences relating to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was young in age and had a serious drug addiction – where the applicant had a lengthy criminal history – where the applicant co-operated with police – where the trial judge was required to make the sentence cumulative upon a previous suspended sentence under s 156A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156A

R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited
R v Hammond (1996) 92 A Crim R 450; [1997] 2 Qd R 195; [1996] QCA 508, considered
R v Karbanowicz[2003] QCA 543, considered
R v Mason[1998] QCA 177, considered
R v Matthews, unreported, Martin DCJ SC, DC No 1533 of 2010, 19 August 2010, considered
R v Paton[2010] QCA 298, cited
R v Reside [2000] QCA 104, considered
R v Theuerkauf & Theuerkauf; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 94, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1] CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of White JA. I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.

[2] MUIR JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by White JA.

[3] WHITE JA: On 25 October 2010 this Court[1] granted the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence.
[1]R v Paton [2010] QCA 298.

[4] The applicant was sentenced on 13 August 2009 in the District Court at Brisbane on his own pleas of guilty to offences contained in two indictments. On the first indictment he pleaded guilty to two counts of stealing; one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle to facilitate the commission of an indictable offence; four counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle; one count of burglary and stealing and one…

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 Paton

Details

AGLC: R v Paton [2011] QCA 34
Case: [2011] QCA 34
Decision Date: 4 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paton involved an appeal against sentence by the respondent, Paton, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges of burglary, stealing, and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The respondent, being young and suffering from a serious drug addiction, had a lengthy criminal history and had co-operated with the police. The trial judge imposed a sentence that was cumulative upon a previous suspended sentence under section 156A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the respondent's age, drug addiction, and cooperation with the police. The court noted the respondent's lengthy criminal history, but also recognised his cooperation and the fact that the trial judge was required to impose a cumulative sentence due to the previous suspended sentence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was appropriate to reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

In conclusion, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The application for leave to appeal was refused, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances, including the offender's background and cooperation with authorities, in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal is 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 Paton [2011] QCA 34
PARTIES:	R v PATON, Nathan Richard (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 177 of 2010 DC No 980 of 2009 DC No 1750 of 2009 DC No 1833 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	4 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 February 2011
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Muir and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTEREFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of burglary and stealing offences and offences relating to the dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was young in age and had a serious drug addiction – where the applicant had a lengthy criminal history – where the applicant co-operated with police – where the trial judge was required to make the sentence cumulative upon a previous suspended sentence under s 156A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 328A Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 156A R v Frame[2009] QCA 9, cited R v Hammond (1996) 92 A Crim R 450; [1997] 2 Qd R 195; [1996] QCA 508, considered R v Karbanowicz[2003] QCA 543, considered R v Mason[1998] QCA 177, considered R v Matthews, unreported, Martin DCJ SC, DC No 1533 of 2010, 19 August 2010, considered R v Paton[2010] QCA 298, cited R v Reside [2000] QCA 104, considered R v Theuerkauf & Theuerkauf; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2003] QCA 94, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent