R v Torrens - [2011] QCA 38

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Torrens [2011] QCA 38

PARTIES:

R
v
TORRENS, Robert Wayne
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 184 of 2010
DC No 251 of 2010
DC No 258 of 2010
DC No 307 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 March 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret Wilson AJA, Ann Lyons and Martin JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, two counts of stealing, two counts of attempting to unlawfully use a motor vehicle, one count of burglary and stealing, one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of entering premises and stealing – where applicant sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where parole eligibility date set at a point after 37.5 per cent of the sentence had been served – where applicant cooperated and made full admissions – whether the parole eligibility date being set at a point later then after one third of the sentence has been served makes the sentence imposed manifestly excessive

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

R v Hess [2002] QCA 184, cited
R v PAA[2006] QCA 56, cited
R v Robertson[2008] QCA 164, cited
R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, cited

COUNSEL:

J McInnes for the applicant
M Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1] MARGARET WILSON AJA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence should be dismissed for the reasons given by Justice Ann Lyons.

[2] ANN LYONS J: On 2 August 2010 the applicant, who is currently 25 years of age, pleaded guilty to eight offences on Ipswich District Court indictments 251/10 and 258/10. The sentences imposed meant he was effectively sentenced to four years’ imprisonment with parole eligibility fixed at a date after he had served 18 months in custody. He now seeks leave to appeal contending that the sentence in all the circumstances was manifestly excessive.

[3] Indictment 258/10 contained one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle on 4 January 2010 with circumstances of aggravation. The circumstances of aggravation were that at the time of committing the offence he was adversely affected by an intoxicating substance and he had previously been convicted of a similar offence also while intoxicated. He was therefore sentenced to a period of two and a half years’ imprisonment and was absolutely disqualified from holding a driver’s licence given his previous history of driving offences.

[4] He also pleaded guilty…

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 Torrens

Details

AGLC: R v Torrens [2011] QCA 38
Case: [2011] QCA 38
Decision Date: 11 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Torrens involved the appellant who pleaded guilty to multiple criminal offences including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, stealing, and burglary. The appellant was sentenced to four years' imprisonment, with parole eligibility set at a point after 37.5 per cent of the sentence had been served. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the setting of the parole eligibility date at a point later than one third of the sentence had been served rendered the imposed sentence manifestly excessive. The court was tasked with determining if the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the appellant's cooperation and full admissions, as well as the statutory guidelines regarding parole eligibility.

The court considered the principles of sentencing and the discretion afforded to the sentencing judge. It noted that the setting of parole eligibility beyond one third of the sentence was permissible under the relevant legislation. The court also emphasised the importance of considering the totality of the circumstances, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's cooperation, and the statutory guidelines. The court found that the sentence, including the setting of the parole eligibility date, did not make the sentence manifestly excessive. It concluded that the sentence imposed was within the permissible range and took into account the statutory guidelines and the mitigating factors presented.

Given the above considerations, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The decision underscored the court's respect for the sentencing judge's discretion and the importance of adhering to statutory guidelines in determining parole eligibility. The court held that the sentence, including the timing of parole eligibility, was appropriate and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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 Torrens [2011] QCA 38
PARTIES:	R v TORRENS, Robert Wayne (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 184 of 2010 DC No 251 of 2010 DC No 258 of 2010 DC No 307 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED ON:	11 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 March 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret Wilson AJA, Ann Lyons and Martin JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, two counts of stealing, two counts of attempting to unlawfully use a motor vehicle, one count of burglary and stealing, one count of entering premises with intent to commit an indictable offence and one count of entering premises and stealing – where applicant sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where parole eligibility date set at a point after 37.5 per cent of the sentence had been served – where applicant cooperated and made full admissions – whether the parole eligibility date being set at a point later then after one third of the sentence has been served makes the sentence imposed manifestly excessive Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) R v Hess [2002] QCA 184, cited R v PAA[2006] QCA 56, cited R v Robertson[2008] QCA 164, cited R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, cited
COUNSEL:	J McInnes for the applicant M Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent