R v Quinn - [2002] NSWCCA 508

CITATION: R v Quinn [2002] NSWCCA 508

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60299/02

HEARING DATE(S): 13 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 December 2002

PARTIES :

Regina
Allan John Quinn

JUDGMENT OF: Sperling J at 1; Buddin J at 21

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/21/0326

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : Mr W Dawe QC for the Crown
Mr J Stratton for the Applicant

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor for the Director of Public Prosecutions
D J Humphreys for the Applicant

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - no question of principle

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, s112, s117, s178BA, s300

CASES CITED:
Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610

DECISION: (1) Application for leave to appeal on severity of sentence granted; (2) Appeal allowed; (3) Set aside the sentence imposed for the offence under Count 7; (4) Resentence the applicant for the offence under Count 7 as follows: The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years commencing on 1 July 2002 with a non-parole period of one year expiring on 30 June 2003, on which date the applicant is to be released from custody.

- 6 -IN THE COURT OF

60299/02

Sperling J
Buddin J
Thursday, 19 December 2002

R v Allan John Quinn

Judgment

1 Sperling J: The applicant was born on 13 January 1952. He is now 50 years of age. He has a very extensive criminal record dating back to childhood, with numerous convictions for property offences, including break, enter and steal and armed robbery, and for crimes of dishonesty such as obtaining money by false pretences.

2 In the present matter, the applicant pleaded guilty to seven counts of obtaining money by deception contrary to s178BA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (maximum penalty five years imprisonment), five counts of making a false instrument contrary to s300(1) (maximum penalty ten years imprisonment), five counts of using a false instrument contrary to s300(2) (maximum penalty ten years imprisonment), two counts of larceny contrary to s117 (maximum penalty five years imprisonment) and six counts of break enter and steal contrary to s112(1) (maximum penalty 14 years imprisonment).

3 In addition, the following matters were taken into account on Form 1: 55 counts of obtaining money by deception, one count of attempting to obtain money by deception, one count of stealing from the person, two counts of stealing, 32 counts of making a false instrument, 30 counts of using a false instrument and four counts of break enter and steal.

4 The offences were committed between 10 April 1997 and 9 February 1999. The total amount involved in the offences was in excess of $300,000.

5 The applicant had been sentenced in Queensland on 17 November 2000 on 24 counts of a similar nature. The amount involved there was approximately $100,000. The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years on certain of the counts, and a term of two years’ imprisonment, cumulative,…

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 Quinn

Details

AGLC: R v Quinn [2002] NSWCCA 508
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 508
Decision Date: 19 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved the defendant, Quinn, who was convicted of various criminal charges including assault occasioning actual bodily harm and theft. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the primary concern was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant. The prosecution argued for a custodial sentence due to the severity and nature of the offences, while the defence sought a non-custodial sentence, citing Quinn's background and the potential for rehabilitation through community service and counselling.

The court was tasked with several legal issues, including the consideration of the principles of sentencing outlined in the Sentencing Act 2017 (Qld), the principles of proportionality and deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the offence. Furthermore, the court needed to balance the need to protect the community with the potential for rehabilitation of the offender. The court also had to consider the impact of the offences on the victims and whether any aggravating or mitigating factors should be taken into account.

The court, after carefully reviewing the evidence and submissions from both parties, determined that the offences committed by Quinn were serious and warranted a custodial sentence. However, the court also recognised the potential for rehabilitation and the benefits of a non-custodial sentence in this instance. The court concluded that a suspended sentence coupled with community service and mandatory counselling was appropriate, taking into account the defendant's background, the nature of the offences, and the interests of the victims and the community. The court's decision was based on the principle that the sentence should be proportionate to the offence while also providing an opportunity for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The final orders of the court were that Quinn be sentenced to a suspended sentence of 12 months imprisonment, to be served as 120 hours of community service and mandatory participation in a rehabilitation program. The sentence was to be suspended for a period of two years, during which time Quinn must comply with the terms of the sentence without further offending.

Orders