R v Sheppard - [2005] QCA 38

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sheppard [2005] QCA 38

PARTIES:

R
v
SHEPPARD, Christopher James
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 93 of 2004
CA No 95 of 2004
DC No 241 of 2004
DC No 486 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction and Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

25 February 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 September 2004

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, White and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, White and Jones JJ concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting in part

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant identified by various witnesses as being involved in armed robbery with violence whilst in company – where inconsistencies existed between witnesses’ police statements and evidence at trial – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment – where applicant 21 years old at time of offence – where applicant had significant criminal history including a prior period of imprisonment – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1)

M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied
MFA v The Queen [2002] 213 CLR 606; (2002) 193 ALR 184, applied
R v Campbell, CA No 287 of 1997, 29 August 1997, distinguished
R v Hides & Johnson, CA No 100 of 1993, CA No 101 of 1993, 4 June 1993, considered
R v Partridge, CA No 358 of 1992, 15 March 1993, 18 March 1993, considered

COUNSEL:

G P Long for the appellant
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

JERRARD JA: On 5 March 2004 Chris Sheppard was convicted by a jury of the offence of armed robbery whilst in company. The victim was James Paul Scott, and the offence was committed in the very early hours in the morning of 18 May 2003 at Toowoomba. On 12 March 2004 Mr Sheppard pleaded guilty to an offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, committed on 22 April 2003, and on 12 March 2004 he was sentenced to four years imprisonment for armed robbery in company and six months imprisonment for dangerous operation of that motor vehicle, those sentences to be concurrent with each other but cumulative upon Mr Sheppard’s deprivation of liberty on a sentence he was then serving. That sentence was one of two years and nine months imprisonment, imposed on 14 March 2002 in respect of his convictions on his…

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 Sheppard

Details

AGLC: R v Sheppard [2005] QCA 38
Case: [2005] QCA 38
Decision Date: 25 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Sheppard, the appellant contested both his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him by the lower court. The dispute centred around an armed robbery committed with violence while the appellant was in the company of others. The appellant was identified by various witnesses as being involved in the crime. However, there were inconsistencies between the witnesses' police statements and their subsequent testimonies at the trial. The primary legal issues before the court were whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty, given the inconsistencies, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements and testimonies, noting that while these discrepancies existed, they did not undermine the overall reliability of the evidence. The court held that it was open to the jury to find the appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt based on the totality of the evidence presented. The court also considered the appellant's criminal history, his age at the time of the offence, and the nature of the crime in determining the appropriateness of the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court also dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appellant's conviction and the sentence of four years imprisonment were upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

CITATION:	R v Sheppard [2005] QCA 38
PARTIES:	R v SHEPPARD, Christopher James (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 93 of 2004 CA No 95 of 2004 DC No 241 of 2004 DC No 486 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction and Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	25 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 September 2004
JUDGES:	Jerrard JA, White and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, White and Jones JJ concurring as to the orders made, Jerrard JA dissenting in part
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant identified by various witnesses as being involved in armed robbery with violence whilst in company – where inconsistencies existed between witnesses’ police statements and evidence at trial – whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment – where applicant 21 years old at time of offence – where applicant had significant criminal history including a prior period of imprisonment – whether sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668E(1) M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487, applied MFA v The Queen [2002] 213 CLR 606; (2002) 193 ALR 184, applied R v Campbell, CA No 287 of 1997, 29 August 1997, distinguished R v Hides & Johnson, CA No 100 of 1993, CA No 101 of 1993, 4 June 1993, considered R v Partridge, CA No 358 of 1992, 15 March 1993, 18 March 1993, considered
COUNSEL:	G P Long for the appellant R G Martin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent