R v Quagliata

Case [2019] QCA 52


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 52

PARTIES:

R
v
QUAGLIATA, Troy Anthony
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2018
DC No 306 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction – Further Orders

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction: 12 March 2018 (Durward SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

2 April 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 August 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Henry and Bond JJ

ORDER:

1.   The conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed.

2.   There should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment.

3.   The defendant should be remanded in custody.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – where an order was made quashing count 1 of the indictment and a re-trial ordered – where the respondent has indicated they will not be proceeding further on count 1 of the indictment – where this would result in there being no sentences according to law as counts 2, 4 and 5 of the indictment were not further punished – whether further orders should be made

Criminal Code (Qld), s 563
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188

COUNSEL:

J A Greggery QC for the appellant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Anderson Telford Lawyers for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. SOFRONOFF P:  I agree with Bond J.

  2. HENRY J:  I have read the reasons of Bond J.  I agree with those reasons and the order proposed.

  3. BOND J:  For reasons set out in R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 45, this Court determined that -

    (a)the conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed;

    (b)there should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment; and

    (c)otherwise:

    (i)      the appeal should be adjourned to permit the appellant and the respondent to file and serve submissions as to the orders which should be made in relation to counts 2, 4 and 5 of the indictment;

    (ii)      each party must file and serve written submissions as to those orders within 7 days of the date of these reasons; and

    (iii)     the determination on the question of the orders which should be made in final disposition of the appeal will be made on the papers.

  4. Submissions have now been received.

  5. The respondent has communicated to the appellant its intention not to proceed further on count 1.

  6. Both parties agree that although (1) the respondent could enter the nolle prosequi in this Court pursuant to s 563(1) of the Criminal Code, and (2) this Court could then proceed to impose an appropriate sentence in respect of counts 2, 4 and 5, that would then entail a further hearing in this Court.  Given that the appellant’s lawyers are based in Townsville, cost and delay would be minimised if the two courses mentioned took place in the District Court in Townsville.

  7. To that end, the appellant proposes that the orders which should be made in final disposition of the appeal are as follows:

    (a)The conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed.

    (b)There should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment.

    (c)The defendant should be remanded in custody.

  8. The appellant submits that making those three orders would then permit –

    (a)the prosecution to elect to proceed under s 563 of the Criminal Code in the District Court in Townsville in relation to count 1;

    (b)the prosecution to apply to the District Court under ss 188(1)(a) and 188(5)(b)(ii) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to re-open the sentences originally imposed in respect of counts 2, 4 and 5, on the basis that, by reason of the quashing of the conviction on and subsequent discontinuance of count 1, those sentences would not be sentences according to law; and

    (c)the District Court then to impose appropriate sentences in respect of counts 2, 4 and 5.

  9. The respondent agrees.

  10. Accordingly, the orders made in final disposition of the appeal are:

    (a)The conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed.

    (b)There should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment.

    (c)The defendant should be remanded in custody.

Details
AGLC
R v Quagliata [2019] QCA 52
Case
[2019] QCA 52
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal against a decision to quash count 1 of the indictment and order a re-trial. The parties involved were the respondent, who was appealing the decision, and the Crown, which was defending the decision. The nature of the dispute was whether further orders should be made given that the Crown had indicated it would not proceed further on count 1 of the indictment, which would result in there being no sentences according to law as counts 2, 4 and 5 of the indictment were not further punished.

The legal issue that the court was required to decide was whether further orders should be made to address the situation where the Crown would not proceed further on count 1 of the indictment. The court had to consider the consequences of the Crown's decision and whether it was appropriate to make further orders to ensure that the defendant was punished according to law.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Crown's decision not to proceed further on count 1 of the indictment resulted in there being no sentences according to law as counts 2, 4 and 5 of the indictment were not further punished. The court held that it was appropriate to make further orders to address this situation. The court quashed the conviction on count 1 of the indictment and ordered a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment. The court also ordered that the defendant should be remanded in custody.

The court's decision provides guidance to practitioners on the appropriate steps to take in situations where a Crown decision results in there being no sentences according to law. The court's decision also highlights the importance of ensuring that defendants are punished according to law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The conviction on count 1 of the indictment should be quashed.

2. There should be a re-trial of count 1 of the indictment.

3. The defendant should be remanded in custody.

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.