R v Sonter - [2008] QCA 292

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Sonter [2008] QCA 292

PARTIES:

R
v
SONTER, Dennis Gary Alexander
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 150 of 2008
DC No 150 of 2008
DC No 151 of 2008
DC No 1375 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 September 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 September 2008

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced to two separate three year terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently for burglary by breaking with violence and serious assault in respect of one indictment and terms of imprisonment of one year each for counts of burglary, stealing and fraud on a second indictment and terms of imprisonment of six months for wilful damage to property and two and a half years for burglary by breaking with violence whilst armed and property damage in respect of a third indictment – where the offences in respect of the second and third indictment were committed whilst on bail for the offences committed in respect of the first indictment – where the offences in respect of the second and third indictment were to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon those in respect of the first indictment – whether the trial judge paid sufficient regards to the applicant’s attempts to rehabilitate himself – whether the trial judge had sufficient regard to the fact that the accused committed the last offence whilst suffering from an amphetamine induced psychosis – whether the trial judge gave sufficient allowance for the early plea of guilty – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances

R v Faramus [1999] QCA 167, applied
R v Hardman [2001] QCA 15, considered
R v Houghton & Genrich[1998] QCA 137, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the order proposed by Jones J and with his Honour’s reasons for that order.

CULLINANE J: I have read the draft reasons for judgment of Jones J in this matter and agree with those reasons and the order proposed.

JONES J: On 16 May 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to nine offences set out in three separate indictments. The offences taken in chronological order and the sentences imposed were as follows:-

1. On 30 May 2006 (151/08) -

1 count of burglary by breaking with violence

and property damage – 3 years…

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 Sonter

Details

AGLC: R v Sonter [2008] QCA 292
Case: [2008] QCA 292
Decision Date: 26 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of multiple offences related to burglaries and assaults, committed over three separate indictments. The offences involved breaking and entering with violence, serious assault, theft, fraud, wilful damage, and property damage. The appellant was sentenced to a total of six years and six months imprisonment, to be served concurrently across the three indictments. Dissatisfied with the severity of the sentence, the appellant applied for leave to appeal, arguing that the trial judge had not sufficiently considered various mitigating factors, including his attempts at rehabilitation, his amphetamine-induced psychosis at the time of the last offence, and his early plea of guilty.

The court had to determine whether the trial judge had adequately taken into account the appellant's rehabilitation efforts, the influence of his psychosis during the commission of the last offence, and the effect of his early guilty plea on the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors presented by the appellant. The judge acknowledged the appellant's efforts to rehabilitate himself, the impact of his psychosis, and his early guilty plea. However, the court concluded that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor unjust in the circumstances. The mitigating factors, while relevant, did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The cumulative nature of the offences, particularly the commission of further crimes while on bail, necessitated a substantial custodial sentence to adequately reflect the seriousness of the appellant's criminal conduct.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, upholding the original sentence as appropriate and proportionate to the appellant's crimes.

Orders

Orders of the court

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 Sonter [2008] QCA 292
PARTIES:	R v SONTER, Dennis Gary Alexander (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 150 of 2008 DC No 150 of 2008 DC No 151 of 2008 DC No 1375 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	26 September 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 September 2008
JUDGES:	Fraser JA, Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced to two separate three year terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently for burglary by breaking with violence and serious assault in respect of one indictment and terms of imprisonment of one year each for counts of burglary, stealing and fraud on a second indictment and terms of imprisonment of six months for wilful damage to property and two and a half years for burglary by breaking with violence whilst armed and property damage in respect of a third indictment – where the offences in respect of the second and third indictment were committed whilst on bail for the offences committed in respect of the first indictment – where the offences in respect of the second and third indictment were to be served concurrently but cumulatively upon those in respect of the first indictment – whether the trial judge paid sufficient regards to the applicant’s attempts to rehabilitate himself – whether the trial judge had sufficient regard to the fact that the accused committed the last offence whilst suffering from an amphetamine induced psychosis – whether the trial judge gave sufficient allowance for the early plea of guilty – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances R v Faramus [1999] QCA 167, applied R v Hardman [2001] QCA 15, considered R v Houghton & Genrich[1998] QCA 137, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent