R v Taylor and Leigep - [1997] QCA 159

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 159

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA
MOYNIHAN J

CA No 101 of 1997 CA No 102 of 1997

THE QUEEN
v.
CRAIG ANTHONY TAYLOR and

MARK ANTON LEIGEP

Applicants

BRISBANE
..DATE 28/05/97
280597 T07/LZG23 M/T COA110/97
THE PRESIDENT: Justice Moynihan will deliver the first
judgment.

MOYNIHAN J: Taylor and Leigep pleaded guilty to breaking, entering and stealing in respect of the disused Panorama Restaurant at Castle Hill in Townsville. There was a caretaker's residence associated with the restaurant. The caretaker had, on the evening in question, arranged to be out of town but for his friend, a woman called Valerie Jaggard, to stay in the residence.

She was awoken at about 11 p.m. by noises and, as a result, she rang the police and left the residence. Shortly afterwards she encountered the police, who were arriving in response to her call, and they entered the building. Taylor was seen standing near the drinks fridge with socks on his hands and in the event was found to be possessed of a radio scanner tuned to the police wavelength.

He fled, was pursued by the police and ultimately was found, together with Leigep who, I think, was wearing gloves. Both were dressed in dark clothing. In other words, it was a professional attempt. One suspects it was in anticipation of the premises being empty in view of the absence of the caretaker. It is also entirely likely that more than the two persons apprehended were involved, because property, which was missing, was not accounted for by either of them.

There was a struggle between the police officers and the two accused men which was obviously a quite vigorous and violent 280597 T07/LZG23 M/T COA110/97

struggle. Taylor had possessed himself of a kitchen knife and in the course of the struggle one of the police officers was cut with the knife; that's Constable Nicoll. He discovered that he had a cut on his right forearm. A plea of guilty to unlawful wounding was accepted on the basis that the wound was not deliberately inflicted but was a consequence of the negligent use of the knife of which the accused had possessed himself in furtherance of his criminal activities and that the infliction of any injury in the circumstances was entirely foreseeable.

Leigep also pleaded guilty to resisting a police officer and that relates to the struggle which took place before the pair were apprehended. It might be noted that Taylor at one stage offered as an explanation that they were thirsty and decided to break in for a drink but got carried away. There was a significant amount of property missing from the premises.

Both pleaded guilty. They are entitled to have that taken into account, although it will be apparent from what I have already said, that they were, in effect, caught in the act. It may be presumed that it was fortunate that the police apparently did not have recourse to the police radio channel as a…

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 and Leigep

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor and Leigep [1997] QCA 159
Case: [1997] QCA 159
Decision Date: 28/05/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Taylor and Leigep, the applicants, Craig Anthony Taylor and Mark Anton Leigep, appealed against their sentences for breaking, entering, and stealing at the Panorama Restaurant in Castle Hill, Townsville, as well as related charges. The applicants had pleaded guilty to the charges and were sentenced to five years imprisonment for the break-in and theft, two years for unlawful wounding, and eighteen months for resisting arrest. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentences imposed for the primary offence of breaking, entering, and stealing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge for the offences of breaking, entering, and stealing were manifestly excessive and whether the sentences for the other charges were appropriate. The court considered the circumstances of the offence, the applicants' criminal histories, and the precedent set by similar cases. The Crown Prosecutor provided a comparison with a previous case, Ogilvie, which helped illustrate the differences in the severity of the crimes.

The court found that the sentences of five years for the primary offence were indeed excessive, given the circumstances and the applicants' criminal histories. The court substituted sentences of three years for Taylor and two years and six months for Leigep for the break-in and theft. The court upheld the sentences for the other charges, considering the benefit of the plea and the applicants' criminal records. The court did not alter the orders regarding the time already served or the compensation order for the police officer injured during the arrest.

The court's order was that the appeal against the sentences was allowed only in relation to the terms of imprisonment for the break-in and theft. The sentences of five years for both applicants were set aside and replaced with sentences of three years for Taylor and two years and six months for Leigep. The other orders, including the compensation order and the declarations regarding time already served, were to stand.

Orders