R v Roberts - [2017] QCA 256

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roberts [2017] QCA 256

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBERTS, Zach William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 321 of 2016
DC No 104 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 21 November 2016 (Chowdhury DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

3 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Douglas J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal 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 pleas of guilty of 38 indictable offences and nine summary offences – where the offences included serious assault, threatening violence, wilful damage, stealing, attempted arson, fraud, and unlawful possession of a weapon – where the effective sentence was five years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of five years, together with three years’ probation – where the sentencing judge took the 825 days of pre-sentence custody into account in formulating the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Bailey[1999] QCA 40, cited
R v Benson [2014] QCA 188, cited
R v Burns[2004] QCA 437, cited
R v Lappan (2015) 255 A Crim R 166; [2015] QCA 180, distinguished
R v Whiting[2013] QCA 18, cited

COUNSEL:

J A Fraser for the applicant
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: The applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of 38 indictable offences and nine summary offences between 12 October 2013 and 23 October 2014. The nature of the indictable offences, and the concurrent sentences of imprisonment imposed for those offences (all of which were wholly suspended) are summarised in the applicant’s outline of submissions as follows:

(a) Counts 1, 13, and 20 (unlawful use of a motor vehicle) – 8 months’ imprisonment;

(b) Counts 2, 8 – 12, 21 – 31, 34 – 38, and 40 (fraud) – 3 years’ imprisonment;

(c) Counts 3 and 17 (serious assault) – 2 years’ imprisonment;

(d) Count 6[1] (threatening violence) – 6 months’ imprisonment;
[1]The applicant’s outline refers also to count 7, which also charged the offence of threatening violence, but that was one of the counts in respect of which nolle prosequis were entered (counts 4, 5, 7, and 43).

(e) Count 14 (wilful damage) – 6 months’ imprisonment;

(f) Counts 15 and 32 (stealing) – 6 months’ imprisonment;

(g) Count 16 (attempted arson) – 2 years’ imprisonment;

(h) Counts 18 and 19 (unlawfully entry of a vehicle) – 3 years’ probation;

(i) Counts 33, 39, and 41 (fraud to the value of $30,000 or more) – 5 years’ imprisonment; and

(j) Count 42 (unlawful possession of a weapon) – 6 months’ imprisonment.

The applicant was convicted and not further punished for each of 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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2017] QCA 256
Case: [2017] QCA 256
Decision Date: 3 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Roberts, was convicted on his pleas of guilty to 38 indictable offences and nine summary offences, which included serious assault, threatening violence, wilful damage, stealing, attempted arson, fraud, and unlawful possession of a weapon. The sentencing judge imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of five years, together with three years’ probation. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider the nature and number of offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing judge's consideration of the 825 days of pre-sentence custody. The court had to determine whether the sentence was outside the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed.

The court examined the sentencing judge's reasons and found that they were comprehensive and took into account all relevant factors. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences committed. The court considered the cumulative effect of the offences, the seriousness of the offending, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. The court was satisfied that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and therefore dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 Roberts [2017] QCA 256
PARTIES:	R v ROBERTS, Zach William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 321 of 2016 DC No 104 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 21 November 2016 (Chowdhury DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	3 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides JJA and Douglas J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal 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 pleas of guilty of 38 indictable offences and nine summary offences – where the offences included serious assault, threatening violence, wilful damage, stealing, attempted arson, fraud, and unlawful possession of a weapon – where the effective sentence was five years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of five years, together with three years’ probation – where the sentencing judge took the 825 days of pre-sentence custody into account in formulating the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Bailey[1999] QCA 40, cited R v Benson [2014] QCA 188, cited R v Burns[2004] QCA 437, cited R v Lappan (2015) 255 A Crim R 166; [2015] QCA 180, distinguished R v Whiting[2013] QCA 18, cited
COUNSEL:	J A Fraser for the applicant S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent