R v Pearson - [2016] QCA 212

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pearson [2016] QCA 212

PARTIES:

R
v
PEARSON, Lanjil Enoka
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 102 of 2016
DC No 2345 of 2015
DC No 297 of 2016
DC No 642 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 31 March 2016

DELIVERED ON:

26 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 August 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA
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 – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to robbery while armed and robbery while armed in company, as well as 17 summary offences – where separate sentences were imposed in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed for each of the armed robberies – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two years – where the applicant alleges the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the likelihood of deportation as a relevant factor – where no proof of hardship as a result of deportation was offered – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to properly take the risk of deportation into account in sentencing the applicant

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to robbery while armed and robbery while armed in company, as well as 17 summary offences – where separate sentences were given in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed for each of the armed robberies – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two years – where the applicant submits that a sentence of four years, suspended after 18 months ought to have been imposed, having regard to his personal circumstances – whether the sentences imposed for the armed robberies are manifestly excessive

R v Apps[2008] QCA 326, cited
R v Bourke[2014] QCA 38, considered
R v Gordon[2011] QCA 326, considered
R v Moss[1999] QCA 426, considered
R v Pham (2015) 90 ALJR 13; [2015] HCA 39, applied
R v UE [2016] QCA 58, approved

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G P Cash QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: On 31 March 2016, in the District Court at Brisbane, the applicant, Lanjil Enoka Pearson, pleaded guilty to each…

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 Pearson

Details

AGLC: R v Pearson [2016] QCA 212
Case: [2016] QCA 212
Decision Date: 26 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant pleaded guilty to robbery while armed and robbery while armed in company, as well as 17 summary offences. The sentencing judge imposed separate sentences for each offence, to be served concurrently, with a five-year head sentence for each armed robbery. The applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two years. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to properly consider the likelihood of deportation and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge erred in not adequately considering the risk of deportation as a relevant factor in sentencing. The applicant did not provide any evidence of hardship as a result of deportation. The court found that the sentencing judge had taken into account the risk of deportation and considered the appropriate sentence for the offences committed. The court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, having regard to the nature and seriousness of the offences.

The applicant also submitted that a sentence of four years, suspended after 18 months, should have been imposed, having regard to his personal circumstances. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's personal circumstances and found that the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court found that the sentences imposed for the armed robberies were not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the 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.

CITATION:	R v Pearson [2016] QCA 212
PARTIES:	R v PEARSON, Lanjil Enoka (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 102 of 2016 DC No 2345 of 2015 DC No 297 of 2016 DC No 642 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 31 March 2016
DELIVERED ON:	26 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 August 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA 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 – SENTENCE – RELEVANT FACTORS – NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to robbery while armed and robbery while armed in company, as well as 17 summary offences – where separate sentences were imposed in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed for each of the armed robberies – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two years – where the applicant alleges the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the likelihood of deportation as a relevant factor – where no proof of hardship as a result of deportation was offered – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to properly take the risk of deportation into account in sentencing the applicant CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to robbery while armed and robbery while armed in company, as well as 17 summary offences – where separate sentences were given in respect of each of the offences, to be served concurrently – where a five year head sentence was imposed for each of the armed robberies – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after serving two years – where the applicant submits that a sentence of four years, suspended after 18 months ought to have been imposed, having regard to his personal circumstances – whether the sentences imposed for the armed robberies are manifestly excessive R v Apps[2008] QCA 326, cited R v Bourke[2014] QCA 38, considered R v Gordon[2011] QCA 326, considered R v Moss[1999] QCA 426, considered R v Pham (2015) 90 ALJR 13; [2015] HCA 39, applied R v UE [2016] QCA 58, approved
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G P Cash QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent