Legal Research
Cases
R v Vaughan

R v Vaughan

Case [2005] QCA 348 23 September 2005

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348

PARTIES:

R
v
VAUGHAN, Danny Eugene
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 123 of 2005
DC No 297 of 2005
DC No 3403 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 September 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2005

JUDGES:

Jerrard and Keane JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane JA and Cullinane J concurring as to the order made, Jerrard JA dissenting

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of breaking and entering premises and stealing - where applicant sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months with an operational period of five years - where applicant was 25 years old at the date of sentence and possessed an extensive criminal history including prior convictions for breaking and entering - where the applicant was not addicted to alcohol or drugs - where the applicant had no real work history - where the applicant had young children who would enter the care of the State if he was imprisoned - whether, in all the circumstances, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350; CA No 294 of 2004, 23 September 2004, cited

R v Donald [2000] QCA 399; CA No 179 of 2000, 28 September 2000, applied

R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625; CA No 277 of 1995, 6 September 1995, cited

R v McIlwain [1997] QCA 347; CA No 196 of 1997, 15 July 1997, cited

R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455; CA No 202 of 2002, 28 October 2002, cited

R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129; CA No 18 of 2001, 5 April 2001, cited

R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30; CA No 402 of 1997, 6 February 1998, cited

Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494; CA No 344 of 1994, 20 October 1994, cited

COUNSEL:

J R Hunter for the applicant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

JERRARD JA: In this application I have read the reasons for judgment of Keane JA, and gratefully adopt his description of the relevant circumstances; but would allow the application.

The applicant’s criminal history reveals the following sequence of his committing similar offences to the offence of breaking and entering premises (and stealing from them) for which he was sentenced on 21 April 2005 to three years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months for a five year operational period:

· on 14 December 1996 he committed an offence of breaking and entering a dwelling…

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 Vaughan

Details

AGLC: R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348
Case: [2005] QCA 348
Decision Date: 23 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vaughan involved the applicant appealing against the sentence imposed following his conviction on a plea of guilty to one count of breaking and entering premises and stealing. The applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months, with an operational period of five years. The applicant, aged 25 at the time of sentencing, had a significant criminal history involving prior convictions for breaking and entering. Despite the absence of alcohol or drug addiction and a lack of substantial work history, the applicant's case was complicated by the prospect of his young children entering state care if he were to be imprisoned.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the totality of the circumstances. The applicant argued that the sentence was unjust and disproportionate, taking into account his age, criminal history, and the potential impact on his children. The court was required to assess the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence in light of these factors, referencing relevant case law to determine if the sentence fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes.

In considering the matter, the court referred to several precedents that highlighted the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to tailor sentences to the individual circumstances of the offender. The court acknowledged the applicant's extensive criminal history and the potential consequences for his children but ultimately found that the sentence was within the range of reasonable outcomes. The court concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive given the nature and circumstances of the offence, the applicant's history, and the need to deter future criminal conduct.

The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the lower court. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348

Most Recent Citation

R v Doyle [2011] QCA 14

Cases citing this decision · 13 of 13 shown

Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service v Toby
[2025] QDC 22 Para 9

…ued at approximately $10,000. The offender caused $2,500 worth of damage when breaking into a premises. Muir JA, considered the appeal in R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348, which involved a 25-year-old offender with prior convictions, including periods of incarceration, saying at [8]: “Keane JA, with whose reasons Culli…
Tryhorn v The Commissioner of Police
[2022] QDC 194 Para 29

…On the hearing of the appeal, the respondent’s counsel referred to R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348 at [16] where Keane JA observed that there was little difference between breaking into a dwelling house and a business premises which had closed for the evening, because in either case there is always the possibility tha…
R v Matthews
[2022] QCA 125 Para 11

…submitted that, consistently with the sentencing judge’s view, four years imprisonment could well be a starting point for the subject offences. [1][2005] QCA 348.…
Pamtoonda v Commissioner of Police
[2021] QDC 207 Para 1

…entences of three years, “taking into account the plea of guilty as a factor in remorse and decreasing penalty.” He relied heavily on R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348 and submitted for a term of three years imprisonment partly suspended after serving 18 months (one half of the sentence) for an operational period of fiv…
Hemmings v Commissioner of Police
[2021] QDC 172 Para 1

…t months of the sentence reflecting the usual discount given to a person who pleads guilty at an early stage. [4] R v Farr [2018] QCA 41; R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348; R v Donald [2000] QCA 399.…
Smallwood v Queensland Police Service
[2021] QDC 43 Para 17

…s a result of the information that was provided by the appellant in relation to this matter. He was referred by the learned Prosecutor to R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348 where it was submitted by the learned Prosecutor that because of the serious criminal history that already existed, a criminal history that covered o…
Richardson v Queensland Police Service
[2019] QDC 257

…Service v Gregory [2010] QDC 388. R v Lomass (1981) 5 A Crim R 230; R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98; R v McIntosh [1923] St R Qd 278; R v Vaughn [2005] QCA 348 Souvils v Commissioner of Police [2011] QDC 274. Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] QCA 84 The Queen v Beattie, ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QC…
Annas v Queensland Police Service
[2018] QDC 251

…Ikin [2007] QCA 224 R v Lomass (1981) 5 A Crim R 230 R v Macintosh [1923] St R Qd 278 R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98 R v Tait [1998] QCA 304 R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348…
R v Farr
[2018] QCA 41

…[2][2005] QCA 348.…
R v Walsh
[2014] QCA 209 Para 1

…of four years imprisonment for the eight counts on the indictment would not have been excessive. [30][2007] 173 A Crim Rep 88; [2007] QCA 247. [31][2005] QCA 348.…
R v Hazelgrove
[2013] QCA 243 Para 1

…knowledged, implicitly, that R v Vaughan [1] and R v Bryant [2] supported a higher sentence than the sentence for which the applicant contended. [1][2005] QCA 348. [2](2007) 173 A Crim R 88.…
R v Doyle
[2011] QCA 14 Para 1

…at the median range. There could not be said to be anything excessive about the two years head sentence imposed by her Honour. [5][2000] QCA 399. [6][2005] QCA 348.…
Chisholm v Wanklin
[2009] QDC 286 Para 1

…534, the head sentence that was held to be in range was four years. In R v Walker a sentence of four years was reduced to three years. In R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348 and R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, sentences of three years were found not to have been manifestly excessive.…

View all 13 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 9 of 9 shown

R v Weston
[2005] QCA 176 Para 1

…y evidence to suggest the applicant has shown any real remorse or has made any attempt to set his life on a more positive course.[2] [2]Cf R v Weston [2005] QCA 176; CA No 87 of 2005, 30 May 2005 at [20] - [21].…
R v Cummins
[2004] QCA 350 Para 1

…referred, those being R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625, R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494, suggest that the three year head sentence is heavier than the head sentences imposed in…
R v Mulder
[2002] QCA 455 Para 1

…alotai [1995] QCA 625, R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494, suggest that the three year head sentence is heavier than the head sentences imposed in all but one of those other…
R v Weatherall
[2001] QCA 129 Para 1

…nces to which the Court was referred, those being R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625, R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494, suggest that the three year head sentence is heavier than t…
R v Donald
[2000] QCA 399 Para 1

…people’s property. Other sentences to which the Court was referred, those being R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625, R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494, suggest that the three year…
R v Wilshire
[1998] QCA 30 Para 1

…pattern of stealing other people’s property. Other sentences to which the Court was referred, those being R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625, R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494, s…
R v McIlwain
[1997] QCA 347 Para 1

…er cases ( R v Donald ); the only higher head sentence in a comparable matter was one to which the respondent referred us, a matter of R v McIlwain [1997] QCA 347. That offender had an extensive criminal record, was 30 years old, and was sentenced by this Court to three and a half years imprisonment for an offenc…
Marama v Rudolph
[1994] QCA 494 Para 1

…[1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494, suggest that the three year head sentence is heavier than the head sentences imposed in all but one of those other cases ( R v Donald ); the only high…
Other sentences to which the Court was referred, those being R v Kalotai
[1995] QCA 625 Para 1

…lf improving and breaking his pattern of stealing other people’s property. Other sentences to which the Court was referred, those being R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625, R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30, R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129, R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350, R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455 and Rudolp…

Legislation cited in this decision · 1

Juvenile Justice Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention

CITATION:	R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348
PARTIES:	R v VAUGHAN, Danny Eugene (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 123 of 2005 DC No 297 of 2005 DC No 3403 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 September 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 September 2005
JUDGES:	Jerrard and Keane JJA and Cullinane J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Keane JA and Cullinane J concurring as to the order made, Jerrard JA dissenting
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of breaking and entering premises and stealing - where applicant sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after 18 months with an operational period of five years - where applicant was 25 years old at the date of sentence and possessed an extensive criminal history including prior convictions for breaking and entering - where the applicant was not addicted to alcohol or drugs - where the applicant had no real work history - where the applicant had young children who would enter the care of the State if he was imprisoned - whether, in all the circumstances, the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Cummins [2004] QCA 350; CA No 294 of 2004, 23 September 2004, cited R v Donald [2000] QCA 399; CA No 179 of 2000, 28 September 2000, applied R v Kalotai [1995] QCA 625; CA No 277 of 1995, 6 September 1995, cited R v McIlwain [1997] QCA 347; CA No 196 of 1997, 15 July 1997, cited R v Mulder [2002] QCA 455; CA No 202 of 2002, 28 October 2002, cited R v Weatherall [2001] QCA 129; CA No 18 of 2001, 5 April 2001, cited R v Wilshire [1998] QCA 30; CA No 402 of 1997, 6 February 1998, cited Rudolph v Marama [1994] QCA 494; CA No 344 of 1994, 20 October 1994, cited
COUNSEL:	J R Hunter for the applicant M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent