R v Vaughan Summary | CaseChat AU

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vaughan [2009] QCA 295

PARTIES:

R
v
VAUGHAN, Danny Eugene
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 37 of 2009
DC No 28 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

6 October 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 October 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Holmes and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed;

2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – OTHER MATTERS – where appeal against conviction abandoned – where applicant contended sentencing judge erred in application of provisions of Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where alleged error did not affect sentence imposed, and Court of Appeal would not make any different order – whether Court should correct alleged error

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B, s 160C

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton for the appellant/applicant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against his sentence of three years imprisonment, with parole eligibility after 18 months, imposed after a trial on one count of enter premises and steal. That sentence was ordered to be served concurrently with an activated suspended sentence of 18 months relating to an earlier conviction for entering premises and committing an indictable offence.

It is not contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive; unsurprisingly, given the applicant’s extensive criminal history, involving many previous such offences. It is, however, said that the learned judge erred in identifying the relevant “period of imprisonment” for the purposes of s 160B and s 160C of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 in determining whether a parole eligibility date or a parole release date should be fixed.

However, it is conceded that the relevant period of imprisonment was, in any event, longer than three years so that the applicant was not entitled to a parole release date; so that whatever one makes of the argument, the sentence imposed would be unaffected.

In those circumstances, there is, in my view, nothing to be gained by embarking on an exploration of the question raised, assuming, indeed, the jurisdiction exists to do so. I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

KEANE JA: I agree.

FRASER JA: I agree.

KEANE JA: The orders of the Court will be appeal against conviction dismissed, application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

The case of R v Vaughan involved the appellant, who had abandoned an appeal against his conviction. Instead, the appellant contended that the sentencing judge had erred in applying certain provisions of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) when imposing his sentence. The matter was before the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the alleged error in the sentencing process warranted any action.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the alleged error in the application of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) by the sentencing judge was significant enough to warrant any corrective action. Given that the error did not affect the sentence imposed, the Court had to consider whether it should intervene to correct the alleged error. Furthermore, the Court had to determine whether it was appropriate to make any different order in light of the appeal against conviction being abandoned.

The Court of Appeal held that the alleged error in the application of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) did not affect the sentence imposed on the appellant. Consequently, the Court determined that it would not make any different order. The Court also noted that the appellant had abandoned the appeal against his conviction, and therefore, it would not entertain any further arguments on that matter. As such, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the appeal against conviction.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal, affirming that no corrective action was necessary in light of the alleged error in the sentencing process. The Court's decision underscores the importance of the impact of any alleged error on the sentence imposed in determining whether corrective action is warranted.

R v Vaughan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Vaughan [2009] QCA 295
PARTIES:	R v VAUGHAN, Danny Eugene (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 37 of 2009 DC No 28 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction & Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	6 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 October 2009
JUDGES:	Keane, Holmes and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against conviction dismissed; 2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – OTHER MATTERS – where appeal against conviction abandoned – where applicant contended sentencing judge erred in application of provisions of Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – where alleged error did not affect sentence imposed, and Court of Appeal would not make any different order – whether Court should correct alleged error Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 160B, s 160C
COUNSEL:	C W Heaton for the appellant/applicant M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant/applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent