R v Tainton

COURT OF APPEAL

[1995] QCA 429

McPHERSON JA
FRYBERG J

THOMAS J

CA No 207 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

DARREN JOHN TAINTON	Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 24/08/95
240895 D.1 T5/KBE M/T COA95/257

THOMAS J: This is an application for leave to appeal against

sentences imposed for a variety of offences, 21 in number-----

APPLICANT: I don't want leave to appeal.
McPHERSON JA: I beg your pardon?
APPLICANT: I don't want any leave to appeal.
THOMAS J: Well, you need it.
APPLICANT: I want to be kept in custody for it.

McPHERSON JA: We'll run through this judgment and if you want to talk to us about it afterwards, we might let you.

THOMAS J: The offences included armed robbery in company, three counts of unlawful use of motor vehicles with circumstances of aggravation, two counts of wilful damage, one of breaking and entering with intent, two of breaking and entering, committing indictable offences, one false pretence, two housebreaking, three stealing, three receiving and three further false pretences.

The sentence imposed has the effect of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The applicant has a serious criminal history suggestive of a criminal career at a young age and persisting with it after being given a number of opportunities by both the District Court and the Supreme Court, which Courts had to deal with multiple criminal charges committed over the previous two years.

In November 1993, the applicant was dealt with in the Supreme
Court for a series of offences and sentenced to two years
240895 D.1 T5/KBE M/T COA95/257
imprisonment suspended after three months for an operative
period of three years. The current offences were committed
during the operational period of that sentence. It seems a
virtual certainty that he would be required to serve the
remainder of that two year term, that is to say, one year and
nine months.

The present sentence, when seen in that light, does not add a particularly substantial increment to what might be expected to be the automatic consequences of his past criminal conduct and the sentence imposed with respect to it.

In short, it seems to me that the present sentences are, if anything, on the light side. Accordingly, it seems to me that the application is without merit and I would refuse it.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

FRYBERG J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order is that the application is dismissed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tainton involved the applicant, Darren John Tainton, who sought leave to appeal against his sentences for a series of criminal offences. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, with McPherson JA, Fryberg J, and Thomas J presiding. Tainton's sentences were for 21 offences including armed robbery, unlawful use of motor vehicles, wilful damage, breaking and entering, false pretences, housebreaking, stealing, and receiving stolen property. The total sentence imposed was eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The court had to decide whether Tainton's application for leave to appeal should be granted.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was appropriate, given Tainton's extensive criminal history and the opportunities he had been given by both the District Court and the Supreme Court to reform. Tainton had previously been sentenced to two years imprisonment, suspended after three months, for a series of offences in November 1993, and the current offences were committed during the operational period of that sentence. The court found that Tainton was likely to serve the remainder of that sentence, which would be one year and nine months, and that the current sentence did not add a substantial increment to what might be expected to be the consequences of his past criminal conduct. The court concluded that the sentences were, if anything, on the light side, and that the application for leave to appeal was without merit.

In light of the above, the court dismissed Tainton's application for leave to appeal. McPherson JA, Fryberg J, and Thomas J all agreed with the decision, and the order was that the application was dismissed. This decision highlights the court's consideration of an offender's criminal history and the opportunities given to reform in determining the appropriate sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established