R v Taylor - [2004] QCA 447

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Taylor [2004] QCA 447

PARTIES:

R
v
TAYLOR, Jeremy
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 359 of 2004
DC No 73 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Gympie

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

24 November 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 November 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie J
separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring 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 AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted going armed in a public place – where applicant convicted two offences of serious assault against police officers acting in the execution of their duty – where applicant bad history of violence – whether sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to circumstances of offence and plea – whether sentence outside appropriate range – whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v Kalinin [1998] QCA 261; CA No 147 of 1998, 16 July 1998, considered
R v Lacey [1996] QCA 336; CA No 221 of 1996, 20 August 1996, distinguished
R v Marshall [2001] QCA 372; CA No 153 of 2001, 10 September 2001, distinguished
R v Von Pein [2002] QCA 385; CA No 145 of 2002, 25 September 2002, distinguished

COUNSEL:

K M McGinness for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MACKENZIE J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed on him for two offences of serious assaults in that they were committed on police officers acting in the execution of their duty and one offence of going armed in public so as to cause fear. For the serious assaults he was sentenced to concurrent terms of two years' imprisonment. For going armed in public he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. In the absence of a suspended sentence, because the sentences are not more than two years, the applicant effectively must serve 16 months in prison. It is submitted that the learned sentencing Judge failed to give sufficient weight to the circumstances of the offences and to the plea of guilty and that the sentence was, by reference to other comparable decisions, outside an appropriate range.

The facts are that on 4 March 2004 police were called to a domestic disturbance. When they arrived a woman complained that the applicant was in the house with a knife. As the police approached the house he came out armed with a large knife. He threatened to kill the police and continued to approach them with the knife making stabbing gestures with it. The officers backed away into the street and attempted to reason with him. He…

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 [2004] QCA 447
Case: [2004] QCA 447
Decision Date: 24 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor, the appellant, Taylor, was convicted by the County Court of Victoria for going armed in a public place and two counts of serious assault against police officers acting in the execution of their duty. The appellant sought to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the circumstances of the offence and his plea, and that the sentence was excessive. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was outside the appropriate range and manifestly excessive, and whether the sentencing judge appropriately weighed the relevant factors.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the circumstances of the offence and the appellant's plea, and whether the sentence was outside the appropriate range and manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence of imprisonment for a total of 11 years was disproportionately harsh, taking into account his age, background, and the fact that he had entered a plea of guilty. The Crown submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the offences and the appellant's history of violence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant factors and that the sentence was not outside the appropriate range. The court noted that the appellant had a history of violence and had committed serious offences against police officers acting in the execution of their duty. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the maximum penalties prescribed by statute. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appellant's appeal against sentence should be dismissed and refused leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence imposed by the County Court was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant factors and that the appellant's history of violence and the seriousness of the offences warranted a substantial term of imprisonment.

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 Taylor [2004] QCA 447
PARTIES:	R v TAYLOR, Jeremy (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 359 of 2004 DC No 73 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Gympie
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	24 November 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 November 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Williams JA and Mackenzie J separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring 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 AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted going armed in a public place – where applicant convicted two offences of serious assault against police officers acting in the execution of their duty – where applicant bad history of violence – whether sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to circumstances of offence and plea – whether sentence outside appropriate range – whether sentence manifestly excessive R v Kalinin [1998] QCA 261; CA No 147 of 1998, 16 July 1998, considered R v Lacey [1996] QCA 336; CA No 221 of 1996, 20 August 1996, distinguished R v Marshall [2001] QCA 372; CA No 153 of 2001, 10 September 2001, distinguished R v Von Pein [2002] QCA 385; CA No 145 of 2002, 25 September 2002, distinguished
COUNSEL:	K M McGinness for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent