Legal Research
Cases
R v Taylor

R v Taylor

Case [2007] QCA 214 12 July 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214

PARTIES:

R
v
TAYLOR, Michael James
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 88 of 2007
DC No 266 of 2006
DC No 265 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

12 July 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 July 2007

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application allowed
2. Appeal allowed
3. Set aside the sentences imposed on 26 March 2007, and order instead that in respect of the 10 counts on indictment No 266 of 2006 the appellant be sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended after serving eight months of that term for an operational period of three years
4. In respect of the 12 counts on indictment No 265 of 2006, the appellant be sentenced on each to two years imprisonment, with a parole release date fixed at 26 November 2007.

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 GRANTED – GENERALLY – where the appellant pleaded guilty to 22 counts of offences of dishonesty – where 12 of the 22 offences were committed after the appellant had been released on bail after being arrested and charged with the first 10 offences – where the total value of property involved in all the offences was $9,119 – where the appellant was aged 22 and in full time employment when sentenced – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive

R v Cummins[2004] QCA 350; CA No 294 of 2004, 23 September 2004, distinguished
R v McDowall[2005] QCA 260; CA No 126 of 2005, 26 July 2005, distinguished
R v Pether [1990] CCA 77, distinguished
R v Smith [2000] QCA 127; CA No 405 of 1999, 11 April 2004, distinguished
R v Speechley & Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 38, distinguished
R v Wickham & Wickham [1998] QCA 168, distinguished
R v Williams[2004] QCA 27; CA No 2 of 2004, 16 February 2004, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A Moynihan SC for the appellant
M Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

JERRARD JA: On 26th March 2007 Michael Taylor pleaded guilty to 22 counts of offences of dishonesty. The first 10 offences were committed over the two weeks between 4th February 2005 and 18th February 2005 and the other 12 offences between 22nd April and 13th May 2005 when Michael Taylor had been released on bail after being arrested and charged with the first 10 offences.

Indeed, he was actually arrested on 15th February 2005 after committing the first eight offences and released on bail and then arrested and charged…

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 [2007] QCA 214
Case: [2007] QCA 214
Decision Date: 12 July 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor, the appellant was convicted of 22 counts of offences of dishonesty, with 12 of these offences committed post bail after initially being charged with 10 offences. The total value of property involved amounted to $9,119. At the time of sentencing, the appellant was 22 years old and in full-time employment. The appellant appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was indeed disproportionate to the crimes committed.

The legal issues central to the appeal were whether the sentence was excessive given the appellant's age, employment status, and the fact that some offences were committed post bail. The court also had to consider the totality of the circumstances, including the appellant's age, the nature of the offences, and the overall value of the stolen property. The overarching principle guiding the court was the proportionality of the sentence to the gravity of the offences.

The court acknowledged the appellant's age and employment status but emphasised the seriousness of the repeated dishonest conduct. However, the court found the original sentences to be manifestly excessive. It deemed the appellant's actions as a series of breaches of trust but recognised the mitigating factors of his age and employment. The court recalculated the sentences, allowing the appeal and modifying the original sentences to reflect a more balanced approach to the appellant's circumstances. The new sentences were designed to ensure adequate punishment while considering the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included allowing the application, setting aside the original sentences, and imposing new sentences. For the 10 counts on the first indictment, the appellant was to serve eight months before the sentence was suspended for three years. For the 12 counts on the second indictment, the appellant was to serve two years with a parole release date set at 26 November 2007.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application allowed

2. Appeal allowed

3. Set aside the sentences imposed on 26 March 2007, and order instead that in respect of the 10 counts on indictment No 266 of 2006 the appellant be sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended after serving eight months of that term for an operational period of three years

4. In respect of the 12 counts on indictment No 265 of 2006, the appellant be sentenced on each to two years imprisonment, with a parole release date fixed at 26 November 2007.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214

Most Recent Citation

R v Bryant [2007] QCA 247

Cases citing this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service v Toby
[2025] QDC 22 Para 7

…f R v Dance [2009] QCA 371, R v Hazelgrove [2013] QCA 243, R v Karbanowicz [2003] QCA 543, and R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88 citing R v MJ Taylor [2007] QCA 214.…
Aloiai v The Commissioner of Police
[2025] QDC 27 Para 1

…of Police .[8] On behalf of the respondent, I was referred to the case of R v Taylor .[9] [6][2022] QDC 281. [7][2018] QDC 100. [8][2019] QDC 34. [9][2007] QCA 214.…
Hamilton v Commissioner of Police
[2024] QDC 18 Para 2

…xamined the cases referred to by both parties which were designed to set a range and demonstrate each party’s argument. They included: R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214; Smith v Commissioner of Police [2012] QDC 48; Penhaligon v QPS [2020] QDC 289; Saunders v Commissioner of Police [2022] QDC 157; Liedke v Commissioner o…
Jones v Queensland Police Service
[2022] QDC 281 Para 14

…The court has been referred to the following comparative cases: King v Commissioner of Police [2019] QDC 131; R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214; Ferrall v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 100; Annas v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 251; Pamtoonda v Commissioner of Police [2021] QDC 207; Tyhorn v Commissioner of…
King v Queensland Police Service
[2019] QDC 131

…99 R v Howie [2009] QCA 50 R v Jackson [2011] QCA 103 R v Lawley [2007] QCA 243 R v McDowall [2005] QCA 260 R v MCT [2018] QCA 189 R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214 R v Ross [2000] QCA 49 R v Smith [2000] QCA 127 Veen v R (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465 R v Williams [2004] QCA 27…
Goodwin v Commissioner of Police
[2016] QDC 349 Para 1

…take account of the duplication of the offence of 8 March 2015 for which, of course, the property was never recovered. [5] [2009] QCA 50. [6] [2007] QCA 214. [7][1998] QCA 168.…
R v Dance
[2009] QCA 371 Para 1

…R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214: Taylor was 22 years of age when sentenced and 20 at the time of offending, with a relatively minor criminal history. He committed 22 dishonesty offences over two short time frames. The total value of property loss involved in all the offences was $9,119.00. The offences involved breakin…
Chisholm v Wanklin
[2009] QDC 286 Para 1

…In R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214 in which the applicant was resentenced to a period of two years imprisonment, there were factors which are both more and less serious than the present case. The more serious factors were that the applicant who was 20 years of age at the time of the offending which included offences co…
R v Howie
[2009] QCA 50 Para 1

…Unfortunately the sentencing judge was not referred to R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214, upon which the applicant's counsel appropriately relied in this application. The Court there set aside a sentence of three years imprisonment, with a parole release date after 12 months, and substituted sentences of two years impris…
R v. Cameron
[2007] QCA 250 Para 1

…onsider the appropriate sentence for offenders of differing backgrounds, who committed a series of offences against property. One was R v MJ Taylor [2007] QCA 214, where this Court allowed an application and substituted a sentence of two years imprisonment, with a suspension after eight months on some counts, coi…
R v Bryant
[2007] QCA 247 Para 1

…The sentence Mr Moynihan SC finally sought was higher than that imposed recently by this Court in R v MJ Taylor [2007] QCA 214 where that 20 year old offender – 22 when sentenced – succeeded on appeal in having his sentence reduced to two years imprisonment, with a suspension after eight months coinciding with a…

View all 11 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v McDowall
[2005] QCA 260

…sentence is manifestly excessive R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350; CA No 294 of 2004, 23 September 2004, distinguished R v McDowall [2005] QCA 260; CA No 126 of 2005, 26 July 2005, distinguished R v Pether [1990] CCA 77, distinguished R v Smith [2000] QCA 127; CA No 405 of 1999, 11 April 2004, distinguished R v Speechl…
R v Cummins
[2004] QCA 350

…e appellant was aged 22 and in full time employment when sentenced – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350; CA No 294 of 2004, 23 September 2004, distinguished R v McDowall [2005] QCA 260; CA No 126 of 2005, 26 July 2005, distinguished R v Pether [1990] CCA 77, distinguished R v…
R v Williams
[2004] QCA 27

…Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 38, distinguished R v Wickham & Wickham [1998] QCA 168, distinguished R v Williams [2004] QCA 27; CA No 2 of 2004, 16 February 2004, distinguished COUNSEL: A Moynihan SC for the appellant M Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Dir…
R v Smith
[2000] QCA 127

…R v McDowall [2005] QCA 260; CA No 126 of 2005, 26 July 2005, distinguished R v Pether [1990] CCA 77, distinguished R v Smith [2000] QCA 127; CA No 405 of 1999, 11 April 2004, distinguished R v Speechley & Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 38, distinguished R v Wickham & Wickham [1998] QCA 168, distinguis…
R v Ross
[2000] QCA 49

…Mr Moynihan SC also referred to the R v. Ross [2000] QCA 49, where that then 18 year old offender committed about 30 property offences of which a fair number were committed when he was on bail for earlier offences. He had been drug addicted when offending.…
R v Wickham & Wickham
[1998] QCA 168

…1 April 2004, distinguished R v Speechley & Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 38, distinguished R v Wickham & Wickham [1998] QCA 168, distinguished R v Williams [2004] QCA 27; CA No 2 of 2004, 16 February 2004, distinguished COUNSEL: A Moynihan SC for the appellant M Copley for the respondent SOLICITORS:…
R v Pether
[1990] QCA 77

…Also of limited assistance is the decision in the R v Pether [1990] QCA 77 in which a sentence of four years with parole recommended after 12 months was upheld in respect of an applicant who pleaded guilty to committing 28 offences of breaking into buildings. That applicant was only 18 and had been under the inf…
CA No 405 of 1999, 11 April 2004, distinguished R v Speechley & Attorney-General of Queensland
[1995] QCA 38

…shed R v Smith [2000] QCA 127; CA No 405 of 1999, 11 April 2004, distinguished R v Speechley & Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 38, distinguished R v Wickham & Wickham [1998] QCA 168, distinguished R v Williams [2004] QCA 27; CA No 2 of 2004, 16 February 2004, distinguished COUNSEL: A Moynihan SC for th…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Taylor [2007] QCA 214
PARTIES:	R v TAYLOR, Michael James (applicant/appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 88 of 2007 DC No 266 of 2006 DC No 265 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	12 July 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 July 2007
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application allowed 2. Appeal allowed 3. Set aside the sentences imposed on 26 March 2007, and order instead that in respect of the 10 counts on indictment No 266 of 2006 the appellant be sentenced to two years imprisonment to be suspended after serving eight months of that term for an operational period of three years 4. In respect of the 12 counts on indictment No 265 of 2006, the appellant be sentenced on each to two years imprisonment, with a parole release date fixed at 26 November 2007.
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 GRANTED – GENERALLY – where the appellant pleaded guilty to 22 counts of offences of dishonesty – where 12 of the 22 offences were committed after the appellant had been released on bail after being arrested and charged with the first 10 offences – where the total value of property involved in all the offences was $9,119 – where the appellant was aged 22 and in full time employment when sentenced – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive R v Cummins[2004] QCA 350; CA No 294 of 2004, 23 September 2004, distinguished R v McDowall[2005] QCA 260; CA No 126 of 2005, 26 July 2005, distinguished R v Pether [1990] CCA 77, distinguished R v Smith [2000] QCA 127; CA No 405 of 1999, 11 April 2004, distinguished R v Speechley & Attorney-General of Queensland [1995] QCA 38, distinguished R v Wickham & Wickham [1998] QCA 168, distinguished R v Williams[2004] QCA 27; CA No 2 of 2004, 16 February 2004, distinguished
COUNSEL:	A Moynihan SC for the appellant M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent