R v Porter - [2014] QCA 14

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Porter [2014] QCA 14

PARTIES:

R
v
PORTER, Scott James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 211 of 2013
DC No 263 of 2012
DC No 58 of 2013
DC No 59 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 February 2014

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Fraser and Gotterson JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant wilfully set fire to a house – where while on bail for the arson the applicant stole a vehicle and committed various offences with that vehicle – where the applicant was charged with arson – where the applicant was charged with burglary and stealing – where the applicant was charged with unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was additionally charged summarily – where the applicant has had a long substance use history – where the applicant has symptoms consistent with a drug induced psychosis – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the applicant was sentenced to three years for arson – where the applicant was sentenced to one year for the other offences concurrently, but to be served cumulatively with the arson sentence – where the total sentence imposed was four years imprisonment – where the applicant contends that the arson sentence did not reflect the criminality of his conduct – where the applicant contends that the sentence did not sufficiently mitigate for his mental disorder – where the applicant contends that the cumulative sentence was unduly harsh – where the applicant contends that the sentence was excessive because of his own belief that parole would not be granted – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Barling[1999] QCA 16, cited
R v Collins[2003] QCA 154, cited
R v Cramond[1999] QCA 11, cited
R v Johnson[2005] QCA 265, considered
R v Johnson (2007) 173 A Crim R 94; [2007] QCA 249, applied
R v Weeding[2007] QCA 311, cited
R v Weyers[2001] QCA 311, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

GOTTERSON JA: On 27 March 2013 at the District Court at Toowoomba, the applicant, Scott James Porter, pleaded guilty to a number of offences for which he was charged by way…

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 Porter

Details

AGLC: R v Porter [2014] QCA 14
Case: [2014] QCA 14
Decision Date: 14 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Porter, appealed against his sentence in the Court of Appeal. Porter was convicted of arson, burglary, stealing, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The crimes were committed while Porter was on bail for the arson. Porter argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, did not reflect the criminality of his conduct, did not sufficiently mitigate for his mental disorder, and was unduly harsh. Porter's sentence was four years imprisonment, with three years for the arson, and one year for the other offences concurrently, but to be served cumulatively with the arson sentence.

The court examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. It considered Porter's criminal history, the nature of the crimes, and his mental health. The court found that the sentence reflected the criminality of Porter's conduct and appropriately mitigated for his mental disorder. The court also found that the cumulative sentence was not unduly harsh, and that Porter's belief that parole would not be granted did not affect the sentence.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal. The court noted that Porter had a long history of substance use and symptoms consistent with a drug induced psychosis, but found that these factors were sufficiently considered in the sentence. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed, and that there was no error in the sentence.

The court refused the application and upheld the sentence. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the criminality of Porter's conduct. The court also found that the sentence appropriately mitigated for Porter's mental disorder, and that the cumulative sentence was not unduly harsh. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Porter [2014] QCA 14
PARTIES:	R v PORTER, Scott James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 211 of 2013 DC No 263 of 2012 DC No 58 of 2013 DC No 59 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	14 February 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	5 February 2014
JUDGES:	Chief Justice and Fraser and Gotterson JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant wilfully set fire to a house – where while on bail for the arson the applicant stole a vehicle and committed various offences with that vehicle – where the applicant was charged with arson – where the applicant was charged with burglary and stealing – where the applicant was charged with unlawful use of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was additionally charged summarily – where the applicant has had a long substance use history – where the applicant has symptoms consistent with a drug induced psychosis – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the applicant was sentenced to three years for arson – where the applicant was sentenced to one year for the other offences concurrently, but to be served cumulatively with the arson sentence – where the total sentence imposed was four years imprisonment – where the applicant contends that the arson sentence did not reflect the criminality of his conduct – where the applicant contends that the sentence did not sufficiently mitigate for his mental disorder – where the applicant contends that the cumulative sentence was unduly harsh – where the applicant contends that the sentence was excessive because of his own belief that parole would not be granted – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Barling[1999] QCA 16, cited R v Collins[2003] QCA 154, cited R v Cramond[1999] QCA 11, cited R v Johnson[2005] QCA 265, considered R v Johnson (2007) 173 A Crim R 94; [2007] QCA 249, applied R v Weeding[2007] QCA 311, cited R v Weyers[2001] QCA 311, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent