R v Shannon David Jackson - [2024] QDC 61

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Constable v Queensland Police Service [2024] QDC 61
PARTIES:	LAURA CONSTABLE (Appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	343 of 2023
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2024 ex tempore
DELIVERED AT:	Southport
HEARING DATE:	30 April 2024
JUDGE:	Prskalo KC DCJ
ORDER:	1. On ground 1 leave is not granted to amend the notice of appeal. 2. Ground 2 is allowed, and the orders for restitution are set aside. 3. Ground 3 is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – SENTENCE EXCESSIVE – s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) – appeal against sentence – whether sentence imposed was excessive.
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 222, 223 Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) ss 9, 10, 13, 35 R v Matauaina [2011] QCA 344 R v Ferarri [1997] 2 Qld R 472
COUNSEL:		A Smith for the Appellant B Baldry for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:		Legal Aid Queensland for the Appellant Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

[2024] QDC 61

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE PRSKALO KC

Appeal No 343 of 2023

LAURA KAY CONSTABLE Appellant

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE Respondent

SOUTHPORT

10.05 AM, TUESDAY, 30 APRIL 2024

JUDGMENT

HER HONOUR: On the 22nd of November 2023, in the Southport Magistrates Court, the appellant pleaded guilty to a total of 34 charges. These included 22 offences of fraud, all of which engaged the same modus operandi of offending. The appellant dishonestly obtained property from Bunnings Warehouse through the fraudulent use of a credit card number and then gained a benefit or advantage by obtaining a refund on that fraudulently acquired property. The most serious of the fraud offences was said to be charge 9, which was committed on 4 May 2023.

On that charge, the appellant was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for a period of 24 months. In respect of the other charges, the appellant was placed on probation for a period of 24 months. Aside from the 22 fraud offences, the appellant was convicted of a number of drug and traffic offences, as well as a summary property offence. The appellant was also disqualified from driving for a period of four months. The appellant was ordered to pay restitution totalling $10,494, referable to 11 of the 22 fraud offences and payable to Bunnings. The restitution was referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.

By notice of appeal pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld), the appellant appeals her sentence on the ground that the Magistrate did not adequately take into account her capacity to pay restitution, rendering the sentence manifestly excessive. Leave was sought by the appellant’s legal representatives to amend the notice of appeal to include two further grounds.

The grounds of appeal
Ground 1 asserts that the learned Magistrate unduly fettered her sentencing discretion in a way which gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of pre-judgment. Ground 2 is…

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 Shannon David Jackson

Details

AGLC: R v Shannon David Jackson [2024] QDC 61
Case: [2024] QDC 61
Decision Date: 1 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Shannon David Jackson, the applicant was charged with burglary, attempted armed robbery, and stealing. Jackson applied for the exclusion of an interview conducted with him at the watch-house, arguing it was unfairly and unlawfully obtained as he declined to have a lawyer present. The crux of the legal issue was whether the exclusion of the interview was warranted due to the absence of legal representation during the interview, despite the applicant's refusal to have a lawyer present.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the interview, considering whether the absence of a lawyer rendered the interview unfair or improperly obtained. It was noted that Jackson had the right to legal representation but chose not to exercise it, which was a critical factor in the court's assessment. The court concluded that while the absence of a lawyer might typically warrant exclusion of evidence under certain conditions, the applicant's conscious decision to forgo legal representation weighed against this. The court held that the interview, while containing admissions and lies, was not so unfair or improperly obtained as to necessitate its exclusion. However, to ensure fairness, the court directed that the interview should be edited and only the audio played to the jury.

Consequently, the court ordered that the interview be edited in accordance with the reasons provided and that only the audio portion be presented to the jury. The application for exclusion was dismissed, and no further orders were made regarding the admissibility of the interview. This decision balances the need for fair proceedings with the applicant's procedural choices.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The interview is to be edited in accordance with the

reasons.

2. The audio only is to be played to the jury.

3. The application is otherwise dismissed.

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.