R v Potts - [2019] QCA 74

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Potts [2019] QCA 74

PARTIES:

R
v
POTTS, Rodney Griffith
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 64 of 2019
DC No 87 of 2019

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 14 March 2019 (Farr SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 16 April 2019
Date of Publication of Reasons: 3 May 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Wilson J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 16 April 2019

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of two charges of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of the use and possession of it – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be suspended after serving three months, for an operational period of two years – where the applicant contends that their sentence is manifestly excessive – where the applicant submits that their mitigating circumstances should have compelled the conclusion that their sentence should have been wholly suspended – whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C(3)

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
R v Field[2017] QCA 188, cited
R v Miller [2004] 1 Qd R 548; [2003] QCA 404, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited

COUNSEL:

A S McDougall for the applicant
N Rees for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Owens & Associates for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

SOFRONOFF P: I agree with Morrison JA.
MORRISON JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of the use and possession of it. One count related to a Ford GT insured for about $61,000. The other count related to a camper-trailer worth about $28,000.
On each count the applicant was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment, to be suspended after serving three months, for an operational period of two years. The sentences were concurrent.
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentences on the ground that they are manifestly excessive. The head sentence is not challenged, even though it is contended that it sits at the upper end of the scale of sentences that might have been imposed. The central contention is that the sentences should have been wholly suspended.
Circumstances of the offending
An agreed schedule of facts was tendered.
On 23 March…

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 Potts

Details

AGLC: R v Potts [2019] QCA 74
Case: [2019] QCA 74
Decision Date: 3 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Potts, appealed against his sentence in the court of criminal appeal. Potts was convicted on his own plea of guilty of two charges of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of the use and possession of it. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be suspended after serving three months, for an operational period of two years. Potts contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive, arguing that his mitigating circumstances should have resulted in a wholly suspended sentence.

The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed on Potts was manifestly excessive. The appeal court considered the principles of sentencing and the appropriate weight to be given to mitigating factors. The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's background, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing. The court also evaluated whether the sentence was excessive having regard to the overall circumstances, including the appellant's personal circumstances and the need for the sentence to reflect community standards.

The appeal court found that while Potts's personal circumstances were indeed mitigating, they did not compel a conclusion that the sentence should have been wholly suspended. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offences and to maintain community confidence in the criminal justice system. The appeal court concluded that the original sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the mitigating factors against the need for punishment and deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision was that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and the application for a new trial or alteration of the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 16 April 2019

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 Potts [2019] QCA 74
PARTIES:	R v POTTS, Rodney Griffith (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 64 of 2019 DC No 87 of 2019
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 14 March 2019 (Farr SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 16 April 2019 Date of Publication of Reasons: 3 May 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 April 2019
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Wilson J
ORDER:	Date of Order: 16 April 2019 Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of two charges of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with intent to deprive the owner of the use and possession of it – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be suspended after serving three months, for an operational period of two years – where the applicant contends that their sentence is manifestly excessive – where the applicant submits that their mitigating circumstances should have compelled the conclusion that their sentence should have been wholly suspended – whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C(3) Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46, cited Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited R v Field[2017] QCA 188, cited R v Miller [2004] 1 Qd R 548; [2003] QCA 404, cited R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
COUNSEL:	A S McDougall for the applicant N Rees for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Owens & Associates for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent