R v Sanderson - [2015] QDC 106

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sanderson [2015] QDC 106

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(respondent)

v

TERENCE JOHN SANDERSON
(applicant/defendant)

FILE NO/S:

414/14

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Section 590AA application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

14 May 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Maroochydore

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2015

JUDGE:

Long SC, DCJ

ORDER:

The proceedings on indictment number 414/14 are stayed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – where the applicant seeks a permanent stay of an indictment charging assault occasioning bodily harm – where the applicant was previously charged with public nuisance in the Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty and was fined and no conviction was recorded – whether the operation of s 16 would prevent the applicant from being punished twice – whether the continued prosecution of the assault occasioning bodily harm amounts to an abuse of process

CRIMINAL LAW – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – where the applicant submits that the situation is relevantly indistinguishable from that which led to such an outcome in R v Dibble; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 8 – where the respondent contends there is an absence of correspondence of punishable acts and also that double punishment may be avoided by sentencing adjustment upon the assault occasioning bodily harm charge and to allow punishment of the applicant for culpability materially additional to that for which has already been punished, pursuant to R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610

Criminal Code Act 1899, s 16.

Justices Act 1886, s 146A.

Summary Offences Act 2005, s 6.

R v Dibble; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 8.

R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63.

R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610.

COUNSEL:

S.Bain for the applicant

G.Cummings for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant: DME Law

Respondent: Director of the Public Prosecutions

On 12 December 2014, an indictment was presented in this court, charging the applicant with one count of assault occasioning bodily harm, in the following terms:

“That on the twenty-seventh day of January, 2014 at Maroochydore in the State of Queensland, TERENCE JOHN SANDERSON unlawfully assaulted SAMUEL NEVILLE STEWART and did him bodily harm.”

By an application filed on 18 March 2015, the defendant seeks an order permanently staying the prosecution of that charge.[1] The basis of that application is the contention that the inevitable outcome of that prosecution, in the event that the applicant is found guilty of the offence which is charged, would be the application of s 16 of the Criminal Code. That is, the contention is that the applicant could not be again punished for the act which constitutes this alleged offence.
[1]Such an order may be made pursuant to s 590AA(2)(a).

The Contentions

Accordingly, the contention is that, in this sense, the continued prosecution of this offence is an abuse of process that warrants the order of a permanent stay of proceedings and that the situation is relevantly indistinguishable from that which led to such an outcome in R v Dibble; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld).

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 Sanderson

Details

AGLC: R v Sanderson [2015] QDC 106
Case: [2015] QDC 106
Decision Date: 14 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sanderson, the applicant sought a permanent stay of an indictment charging assault occasioning bodily harm. This followed a previous charge of public nuisance in the Magistrates Court, where the applicant had pleaded guilty, been fined, and no conviction was recorded. The central issue before the court was whether the operation of section 16 would prevent the applicant from being punished twice, and whether the continued prosecution of the assault occasioning bodily harm amounted to an abuse of process.

The applicant argued that the situation was relevantly indistinguishable from that which led to such an outcome in R v Dibble; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 8, asserting that the prosecution of the assault occasioning bodily harm would result in double punishment. The respondent, however, contended that there was an absence of correspondence of punishable acts and that double punishment could be avoided by sentencing adjustment upon the assault occasioning bodily harm charge. The respondent also argued that it was permissible to allow punishment of the applicant for culpability materially additional to that for which has already been punished, pursuant to R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610.

The court found that the continued prosecution of the assault occasioning bodily harm charge would indeed result in double punishment, which is prohibited by law. The court concluded that the situation was analogous to that in R v Dibble, and that the prosecution amounted to an abuse of process. Consequently, the proceedings on indictment number 414/14 were stayed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The proceedings on indictment number 414/14 are stayed.

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 Sanderson [2015] QDC 106
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (respondent) v TERENCE JOHN SANDERSON (applicant/defendant)
FILE NO/S:	414/14
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Section 590AA application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	14 May 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:	13 April 2015
JUDGE:	Long SC, DCJ
ORDER:	The proceedings on indictment number 414/14 are stayed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – where the applicant seeks a permanent stay of an indictment charging assault occasioning bodily harm – where the applicant was previously charged with public nuisance in the Magistrates Court, pleaded guilty and was fined and no conviction was recorded – whether the operation of s 16 would prevent the applicant from being punished twice – whether the continued prosecution of the assault occasioning bodily harm amounts to an abuse of process CRIMINAL LAW – DOUBLE JEOPARDY – where the applicant submits that the situation is relevantly indistinguishable from that which led to such an outcome in R v Dibble; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 8 – where the respondent contends there is an absence of correspondence of punishable acts and also that double punishment may be avoided by sentencing adjustment upon the assault occasioning bodily harm charge and to allow punishment of the applicant for culpability materially additional to that for which has already been punished, pursuant to R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610 Criminal Code Act 1899, s 16. Justices Act 1886, s 146A. Summary Offences Act 2005, s 6. R v Dibble; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 8. R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63. R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610.
COUNSEL:	S.Bain for the applicant G.Cummings for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant: DME Law Respondent: Director of the Public Prosecutions