R v Smith - [2001] QCA 476

[2001] QCA 476

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
AMBROSE J

CA No 207 of 2001

THE QUEEN

DARREN ANTHONY SMITH Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 02/11/2001

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 29 March 2000 to the offences of three counts of arson, one count of attempted arson, five counts of break, enter and steal, one count of burglary and stealing, one count of entering a premises with intent, one count of injuring an animal at night and four counts of stealing.

These offences were contained in three indictments and occurred over a 10-month period from 29 April 2000 to 11 February 2001. The sentence was adjourned to enable the defence to prepare psychological material. On 8 June 2001, the learned sentencing Judge ordered the presentence report and psychiatric assessment under section 201, Corrective Services Act 1988, Queensland.

On 13 July 2001, the applicant pleaded guilty to further counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, unlawfully entering a motor vehicle with intent to commit an indictable offence and another count of stealing. He was sentenced to an effective term of four years' imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after 18 months.

The applicant, who represents himself today, claims the sentence was manifestly excessive. He was 18 at sentence and 17 at the time of the commission of the offences. He had previous convictions in New South Wales as a child for malicious damage of property, driving without a licence, using a prohibitive weapon without a permit and common assault.

The most serious conduct involved in the offences for this Court's consideration is as follows. The applicant stole a turf roller from under a church building to break into a nearby mower shop. He and his accomplice lit a fire in a shed associated with the shop, destroying the shed and contents, the total value of which was $191,250. They were then responsible for smashing a shopfront window with a brick. Later that night, they set fire to three wool bales and some sweets display containers at a convenience store.
The applicant initially denied committing the offences but, after his fingerprints were found, made some admissions.

On 26 May 2000, he committed further offences including breaking into sheds and setting fire to a ride-on mower in one of the sheds, causing damage of $1,600.

On 30 May 2000, he broke into a building belonging to Education Queensland and stole electrical equipment and other property valued at about $7,500, none of which was recovered.

On 9 June 2000, he broke into a storage shed at the Claremont Special School, took a ride-on mower, broke into the school bus, which was modified for disabled children and set fire to and destroyed it. The bus was valued at $83,559. The ride-on mower was valued at $4,390 and was never recovered. Again, the applicant's fingerprints were found at the scene.

On 12 June 2001, the applicant and his accomplices, Manly and McCarg, made petrol bombs by lighting a wick in soft…

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 Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2001] QCA 476
Case: [2001] QCA 476
Decision Date: 02/11/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involved the applicant, Darren Anthony Smith, who appealed against his sentence. Smith pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences, including multiple counts of arson, break and enter, and stealing, committed over a period of 10 months. The court had to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. Smith, who was 18 at the time of sentencing and had a history of offending, claimed that the sentence was disproportionate compared to his co-offenders. The Court of Appeal considered the nature and extent of Smith's offending, his age, his early plea of guilty, and the sentences of his co-offenders. After thorough deliberation, the Court found that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of Smith's offending and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment. The appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders