R v Taylor - [2015] QCA 214

[2015] QCA 214

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES CJ
GOTTERSON JA
APPLEGARTH J

CA No 148 of 2015
DC No 900 of 2015
DC No 1045 of 2015
DC No 2941 of 2009

THE QUEEN

TAYLOR, Iain Applicant

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2015

JUDGMENT

HOLMES CJ: The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of entering premises with the intent to commit an indictable offence, six counts of breaking and entering and stealing, one count of attempted stealing, one count of stealing, two counts of receiving tainted property and one count of possessing things used in connection with unlawful entry. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment on the counts of attempted stealing, stealing, receiving tainted property and possessing things used in connection with unlawful entry and four years’ imprisonment on the remaining burglary charges.At the same time he was ordered to serve a suspended two year sentence of imprisonment which he had breached.
The first in time of the offences involved the applicant breaking a padlock, using an oxyacetylene torch to remove some security bars and breaking louvres in order to gain access to a business which sold coffee machines and then stealing 20 machines valued at almost $30,000. That occurred at the end of 2006. The applicant was apprehended in respect of those offences in 2009.

In August 2007, the applicant and a friend were prevented from driving away with a refrigerator they had stolen from outside a store. That was the attempted stealing. A month later they stole two GPS systems from yet another shop. In December 2011, the applicant jemmied open a lock at yet another business and smashed a window to gain entry, but after searching the inside of the premises apparently failed to find anything to take. In early 2012, police searching a car associated with the applicant found two gas bottles which had been recently stolen from a business and a bag containing a crowbar, masks, screwdrivers and gloves. Police also searched a storage facility which the applicant rented and found a cheque book which had been stolen in April 2009.

In April 2013, the applicant smashed glass in order to enter a shop where he stole $850. In December 2013 he committed a series of similar offences, smashing glass doors or windows to break into four adjoining shops, breaking open safes and cash registers to steal cash in respect of amounts of $700, $700 and $1,000. From the fourth shop he was unsuccessful in obtaining any cash. In January 2014, a similar effort, which entailed breaking a locked glass door to get into a café and trying to open the safe triggered security alarms, resulting in the applicant’s arrest with $644 in stolen cash: he made admissions to that offence. In respect of other offences, he was either captured on CCTV footage or left DNA at the scene, generally because he had cut himself.

The applicant was born in 1952. His criminal history as an adult began in 1970 with, thereafter, a large…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2015] QCA 214
Case: [2015] QCA 214
Decision Date: 2 NOVEMBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal in Queensland, the case of R v Taylor involved an applicant, Iain Taylor, who had pleaded guilty to a series of offences, including entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence, breaking and entering and stealing, attempted stealing, stealing, receiving tainted property, and possessing things used in connection with unlawful entry. Taylor was sentenced to a total of five years' imprisonment, with certain sentences to be served concurrently. Taylor appealed against his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred in not sufficiently discounting the sentence for his early guilty plea and in setting a parole eligibility date that was unrealistically short. The appeal sought leave to challenge the sentence on these grounds.

The central legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentencing judge had appropriately considered Taylor's early guilty plea in determining the sentence and whether the setting of a parole eligibility date one month after the sentence was indicative of a factual error. The Court examined whether the sentencing judge had made a factual error by not appreciating the time necessary for parole assessments and applications, which would affect the parole eligibility date.

The Court found that while the sentencing judge had not expressly mentioned the early guilty plea, the setting of a parole eligibility date after 18 months of a four-year sentence demonstrated that the judge had indeed considered the plea. The Court also concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the sentencing judge was under any misapprehension about the administrative processes involved in parole eligibility, or that such processes would prevent Taylor from being considered for parole within the timeframe set. The Court found no factual error in the sentencing judge's approach.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Holmes CJ, Gotterson JA, and Applegarth JCA, unanimously refused Taylor's application for leave to appeal against his sentence.

Orders