R v Rochford - [2006] QCA 200

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Rochford [2006] QCA 200

PARTIES:

R
v
ROCHFORD, Andrew Colin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 81 of 2006
DC No 47 of 2005;
DC No 4 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Dalby

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

8 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Holmes JA, Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. The sentence imposed on count 2 should be varied by setting aside the recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 18 months and substituting therefore a recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 12 months
2. The sentences imposed on counts 3 and 4 should be varied by adding a recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 9 months
3. Otherwise the application for leave to appeal should be refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND ENQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where accused pleaded guilty to offences of threatening violence at night, wilful damage and various summary offences – where applicant, from a moving vehicle, fired two shots from a rifle at the local police station – where one shot penetrated a plate glass door at police station – where a witness and other acquaintances had claimed that applicant had said words indicative of premeditation on occasions prior to the shots being fired – where applicant argued that sentencing judge erred in not indicating the factual basis for the sentence imposed – whether sentence is manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

B W Farr for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MACKENZIE J: The applicant pleaded guilty on indictment to offences of threatening violence at night and two counts of wilful damage. These were counts 2, 3 and 4 on the indictment. Count 1, attempting to strike with a projectile, was not pursued. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a recommendation after 18 months on count 2 and two years two months on counts 3 and 4. There were a number of summary firearms offences relating to the night of the incident and one of possession of a small quantity of amphetamine found in his possession when he was arrested. He was convicted but not further punished for them.

On the evening of the 26th of April 2004 the applicant had been drinking with a friend. They decided to do some target practice with a rifle that was at his friend's house but apparently not owned by him. They drove to a location where they tried to shoot some wildlife and then fired a number of shots at a road sign. Having failed to…

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 Rochford

Details

AGLC: R v Rochford [2006] QCA 200
Case: [2006] QCA 200
Decision Date: 8 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent was convicted and sentenced for offences including threatening violence at night, wilful damage, and various summary offences after firing two shots from a rifle at a local police station, with one shot penetrating a plate glass door. The respondent appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not correctly indicate the factual basis for the sentence imposed and that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia considered the appeal and the legal issues surrounding the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had erred in not indicating the factual basis for the sentence imposed and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the evidence presented during the trial, including the nature of the offences, the respondent's conduct, and the impact of the offences on the community. The court also considered the principles of sentencing in Australia, including the need for proportionality and deterrence.

The High Court found that while the sentencing judge had not explicitly stated the factual basis for the sentence, it was implicit in the reasons provided. The court noted that the respondent's actions were premeditated and posed a significant risk to public safety. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence. However, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant a variation. The court did, however, vary certain aspects of the sentence regarding the recommendation for post-prison community-based release.

In conclusion, the High Court varied the sentence imposed on the respondent by adjusting the recommendation for post-prison community-based release on certain counts. The court refused the application for leave to appeal in all other respects. The court found that while the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the variation of the release recommendation was necessary to ensure appropriate consideration of the respondent's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The sentence imposed on count 2 should be varied by setting aside the recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 18 months and substituting therefore a recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 12 months

2. The sentences imposed on counts 3 and 4 should be varied by adding a recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 9 months

3. Otherwise the application for leave to appeal should be 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 Rochford [2006] QCA 200
PARTIES:	R v ROCHFORD, Andrew Colin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 81 of 2006 DC No 47 of 2005; DC No 4 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Dalby
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 June 2006
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, Holmes JA, Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. The sentence imposed on count 2 should be varied by setting aside the recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 18 months and substituting therefore a recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 12 months 2. The sentences imposed on counts 3 and 4 should be varied by adding a recommendation that the applicant be considered for post-prison community based release after 9 months 3. Otherwise the application for leave to appeal should be refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND ENQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where accused pleaded guilty to offences of threatening violence at night, wilful damage and various summary offences – where applicant, from a moving vehicle, fired two shots from a rifle at the local police station – where one shot penetrated a plate glass door at police station – where a witness and other acquaintances had claimed that applicant had said words indicative of premeditation on occasions prior to the shots being fired – where applicant argued that sentencing judge erred in not indicating the factual basis for the sentence imposed – whether sentence is manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	B W Farr for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent