R v PX - [2005] QCA 246

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PX [2005] QCA 246

PARTIES:

R
v
PX
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 14 of 2005
DC No 1226 of 2004
DC No 1227 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

15 July 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2005

JUDGES:

Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence       granted
2.    Appeal against sentence allowed
3.    Set aside the sentence of eight years imprisonment
4.    In lieu thereof, substitute a sentence of six years       imprisonment with a declaration of 893 days as time       already served
5.    Further reasons of Keane JA to be handed down       separately and shall only be distributed to the parties       involved in the appeal
6. The further separate reasons not be further published and that a copy thereof be placed in a sealed envelope together with a revised copy of the transcript of that part of the proceedings which were not conducted in open court, and that it only be opened pursuant to a further order of this Court or upon application to reopen the sentence made pursuant to s 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED - GENERALLY - where applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of armed robbery as well as other offences involving burglary, stealing and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle - where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment - where applicant had provided a high level of co-operation to the authorities - whether adequate weight had been given to this co-operation by the sentencing judge

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A

Hayes v R (1981) 3 A Crim R 286, cited

R v Gladkowski [2000] QCA 352; (2000) 115 A Crim R 446, cited

R v M [2001] QCA 131; [2002] 1 Qd R 520, applied
R v Perrier (No 2) [1991] 1 VR 717, cited

R v Thompson [1994] QCA 393; CA No 336 of 1994, 16 November 1994, cited

COUNSEL:

J D Farmer for applicant/appellant
R G Martin SC for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

WILLIAMS JA: For the reasons given by Keane JA the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be granted, the appeal should be allowed, and a sentence of six years imprisonment substituted; the declaration that the applicant spent 893 days in pre-sentence custody should remain.

JERRARD JA: In this appeal, I have had the benefit of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA, and his proposed orders, and respectfully agree with those reasons and orders. I add the…

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 PX

Details

AGLC: R v PX [2005] QCA 246
Case: [2005] QCA 246
Decision Date: 15 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v PX, the appellant, PX, appealed against the sentence of eight years imprisonment imposed on him by the trial judge, following his conviction on seven counts of armed robbery and other related offences. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the trial judge had given adequate consideration to the appellant's level of cooperation with the authorities when imposing the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the appellant's cooperation with the authorities, which could have warranted a lesser sentence. The appellant argued that the trial judge had not sufficiently taken into account his level of cooperation when determining the sentence. The Court of Appeal examined the relevant case law and statutory provisions to assess whether the sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's cooperation.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the appellant's cooperation with the authorities when imposing the sentence. The Court held that the appellant's cooperation warranted a lesser sentence, and as such, the appeal against sentence was allowed. The Court set aside the original sentence of eight years imprisonment and substituted a sentence of six years imprisonment, with a declaration of 893 days as time already served. The Court also ordered that further reasons of Keane JA be handed down separately and not be further published. A sealed envelope containing the further reasons and a revised copy of the transcript of the proceedings not conducted in open court was to be opened only pursuant to a further order of the Court or upon application to reopen the sentence made under s 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal against sentence allowed

3. Set aside the sentence of eight years imprisonment

4. In lieu thereof, substitute a sentence of six years imprisonment with a declaration of 893 days as time already served

5. Further reasons of Keane JA to be handed down separately and shall only be distributed to the parties involved in the appeal

6. The further separate reasons not be further published and that a copy thereof be placed in a sealed envelope together with a revised copy of the transcript of that part of the proceedings which were not conducted in open court, and that it only be opened pursuant to a further order of this Court or upon application to reopen the sentence made pursuant to s 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

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 PX [2005] QCA 246
PARTIES:	R v PX (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 14 of 2005 DC No 1226 of 2004 DC No 1227 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	15 July 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 June 2005
JUDGES:	Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted 2. Appeal against sentence allowed 3. Set aside the sentence of eight years imprisonment 4. In lieu thereof, substitute a sentence of six years imprisonment with a declaration of 893 days as time already served 5. Further reasons of Keane JA to be handed down separately and shall only be distributed to the parties involved in the appeal 6. The further separate reasons not be further published and that a copy thereof be placed in a sealed envelope together with a revised copy of the transcript of that part of the proceedings which were not conducted in open court, and that it only be opened pursuant to a further order of this Court or upon application to reopen the sentence made pursuant to s 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED - GENERALLY - where applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of armed robbery as well as other offences involving burglary, stealing and the unlawful use of a motor vehicle - where applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment - where applicant had provided a high level of co-operation to the authorities - whether adequate weight had been given to this co-operation by the sentencing judge Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A Hayes v R (1981) 3 A Crim R 286, cited R v Gladkowski [2000] QCA 352; (2000) 115 A Crim R 446, cited R v M [2001] QCA 131; [2002] 1 Qd R 520, applied R v Perrier (No 2) [1991] 1 VR 717, cited R v Thompson [1994] QCA 393; CA No 336 of 1994, 16 November 1994, cited
COUNSEL:	J D Farmer for applicant/appellant R G Martin SC for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for applicant/appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent