R v Timoti - [2003] QCA 96

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Timoti [2003] QCA 96
PARTIES: R
v
TIMOTI, Mekuri
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 401 of 2002
DC No 3092 of 2002
DC No 3089 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX 11 March 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 11 March 2003
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON BAIL – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery with personal violence and one count of grievous bodily harm – where applicant committed second offence while on bail for the first offence – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment on each count suspended after 15 months for an operational period of four years to be served concurrently –whether trial judge took into account the applicant’s guilty plea – whether the trial judge took into account the fact the second offence was committed while the applicant was on bail for the first
Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 135(2)(e)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161, s 13, s 157(2)
R v Bryan;, ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) QCA 18; CA No 410
of 2002, 5 February 2003, applied
R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415, applied
R v Richards [1981] 2 NSWLR 464, applied
COUNSEL: M J Griffin SC for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

ATKINSON J: The applicant, Mekuri Timoti, was sentenced in the District Court on 14 November 2002 after pleading guilty to one count of robbery with personal violence and one count of grievous bodily harm. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment on each count, suspended after 15 months, for an operational period of four years. Each sentence was to be served concurrently.

The circumstances of each offence show relatively brief, but extreme violence by the accused against each complainant.

The circumstances of the first offence were that the applicant arrived in a motor vehicle with two other men at a bottle shop at a Calamvale hotel. The 19 year old complainant was

employed at the hotel as a bottle shop attendant in the drive-
through section. He was alone when the applicant and his two
companions arrived at about 9 p.m. on 17 October 2001. The
applicant entered the cold room with the complainant and
punched the complainant once in the head with his fist. The
complainant fell to the ground unconscious and the applicant
fled back to the vehicle, taking a $10 cask of wine with him.
His companions ran back to the vehicle…

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 Timoti

Details

AGLC: R v Timoti [2003] QCA 96
Case: [2003] QCA 96
Decision Date: 11/03/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Timoti was before the court on an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the trial judge. Timoti had pleaded guilty to two counts: one of robbery with personal violence and one of grievous bodily harm. The trial judge sentenced Timoti to four years imprisonment on each count, suspended after 15 months, for an operational period of four years to be served concurrently. Timoti applied for leave to appeal on the basis that the trial judge failed to take into account his guilty plea and the fact that the second offence was committed while he was on bail for the first offence.

The court needed to decide whether the trial judge had erred in not considering the applicant's guilty plea and the fact that the second offence was committed while on bail. The court noted that while the trial judge did not explicitly mention these factors, the sentence imposed demonstrated an understanding of their significance. The court found that the sentence reflected a discount for the guilty plea and the fact that the second offence was committed while on bail. Therefore, the trial judge's failure to explicitly mention these factors did not amount to a significant error.

The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors. The court found that the trial judge had indeed considered the applicant's guilty plea and the fact that the second offence was committed while on bail, even though these factors were not explicitly mentioned. The court concluded that the sentence reflected a discount for these factors, and therefore, the trial judge's failure to explicitly mention them did not amount to a significant error. The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

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 Timoti [2003] QCA 96
PARTIES:	R v TIMOTI, Mekuri (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 401 of 2002 DC No 3092 of 2002 DC No 3089 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	11 March 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 March 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON BAIL – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of robbery with personal violence and one count of grievous bodily harm – where applicant committed second offence while on bail for the first offence – where applicant sentenced to four years imprisonment on each count suspended after 15 months for an operational period of four years to be served concurrently –whether trial judge took into account the applicant’s guilty plea – whether the trial judge took into account the fact the second offence was committed while the applicant was on bail for the first
Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 135(2)(e) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161, s 13, s 157(2)
R v Bryan;, ex parte A-G (Qld) (2003) QCA 18; CA No 410 of 2002, 5 February 2003, applied R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415, applied R v Richards [1981] 2 NSWLR 464, applied
COUNSEL:	M J Griffin SC for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent