R v Stevenson - [2004] QCA 470

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stevenson [2004] QCA 470

PARTIES:

R
v
STEVENSON, Timothy James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 373 of 2004
DC No 24 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Dalby

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

2 December 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Mackenzie and Philippides 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 refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and one count of wilful damage – learned sentencing judge held that sentence of 12 months imprisonment was appropriate penalty – did not declare time spent in pre-sentence custody on various matters as time already served under sentence, but deducted that time from 12 months and sentenced applicant to 41 weeks imprisonment – whether learned sentencing judge should have made a declaration of time already served – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161

R v Broadbridge [1994] QCA 278; CA No 195 of 1994, 5 August 1994, cited
R v Coake [1994] QCA 12; CA No 43 of 1998, 5 February 1995, cited
R v Fox [1998] QCA 121; CA No 50 of 1998, 12 June 1998, cited
R v Gehrman [2002] QCA 261; CA No 192 of 2002, 25 July 2002, cited
R v Massey [2002] QCA 312, (2002) 132 A Crim R 433, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Stevenson pleaded guilty on 21 September 2004 to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and one count of wilful damage. He also pleaded guilty to summary offences of obstructing police, driving under the influence of an intoxicating substance, failing to dispose of a needle and possession of a dangerous drug. He was sentenced to 41 weeks imprisonment for the offence of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst adversely affected and to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment on the remaining counts. He contends in his grounds of appeal that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, but from his written outline and his oral submissions, it appears that his sole complaint is that the sentencing judge did not make a declaration under s 161 Penalties & Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ("the Act") that time spent in pre-sentence custody was imprisonment already served under the sentence.

Mr Stevenson was 29 years old at sentence and 28 when…

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 Stevenson

Details

AGLC: R v Stevenson [2004] QCA 470
Case: [2004] QCA 470
Decision Date: 2 December 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Stevenson, appealed against his sentence after pleading guilty to charges of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle while adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and wilful damage. The sentencing judge imposed a 12-month imprisonment term, but deducted the time the applicant had already spent in pre-sentence custody, resulting in a 41-week imprisonment sentence. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the learned sentencing judge should have declared the time spent in pre-sentence custody as time already served under the sentence and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the sentencing principles applicable to the case, including the need for consistency in sentencing and the proper application of pre-sentence custody time. The court held that the sentencing judge had the discretion to decide whether to declare time already served, and in this instance, the decision was not flawed. The court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the culpability of the applicant, and the need to deter and rehabilitate. The court concluded that the sentence was within the appropriate range, and there were no grounds to interfere with the sentencing judge's decision.

In light of the above reasoning, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the sentence. The orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Stevenson [2004] QCA 470
PARTIES:	R v STEVENSON, Timothy James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 373 of 2004 DC No 24 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Dalby
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	2 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 December 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Mackenzie and Philippides 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 refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and one count of wilful damage – learned sentencing judge held that sentence of 12 months imprisonment was appropriate penalty – did not declare time spent in pre-sentence custody on various matters as time already served under sentence, but deducted that time from 12 months and sentenced applicant to 41 weeks imprisonment – whether learned sentencing judge should have made a declaration of time already served – whether sentence was manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161 R v Broadbridge [1994] QCA 278; CA No 195 of 1994, 5 August 1994, cited R v Coake [1994] QCA 12; CA No 43 of 1998, 5 February 1995, cited R v Fox [1998] QCA 121; CA No 50 of 1998, 12 June 1998, cited R v Gehrman [2002] QCA 261; CA No 192 of 2002, 25 July 2002, cited R v Massey [2002] QCA 312, (2002) 132 A Crim R 433, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent