R v Waite - [2017] QCA 270

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Waite [2017] QCA 270

PARTIES:

R
v
WAITE, Eliza Camille
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 277 of 2016
DC No 1649 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 14 September 2016 (Moynihan QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

10 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2017

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Brown J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted following her plea of guilty to one count of supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – where the applicant received a fine and a conviction was recorded – where the applicant was 28 years old at the time of the offending and 30 years old at sentence – where the applicant contended that the delay between the offence and her arrest should have been a mitigating factor – where the applicant contended that the recording of a conviction would interfere with her ability to obtain employment as a childcare worker – whether the sentencing judge erred in recording the conviction

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12
Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 167, s 168, s 221, s 226, s 323, s 357F

Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
R v Briese; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1998] 1 Qd R 487; [1997] QCA 10, cited
R v Cox; R v Cuffe; R v Morrison (2013) 92 ATR 80; [2013] QCA 10, applied
R v L; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1996] 2 Qd R 63; [1995] QCA 444, applied

COUNSEL:

E A Mac Giolla Ri for the applicant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Russo Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Philippides JA and agree with those reasons and the order her Honour proposes.
PHILIPPIDES JA: The applicant was sentenced on 14 September 2016 on her plea of guilty to one count of supplying the dangerous drug, methylamphetamine. She was sentenced to a fine of $1,500 and a conviction was recorded. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence, her complaint concerning the recording of the conviction. The applicant was 28 years old at the time of the offending and 30 years of age when sentenced.
Matters relied on by the applicant
At the hearing of the application, the applicant sought, and was granted, leave to amend the grounds of appeal in the Notice of Appeal as follows:
1.The sentencing judge erred in failing to have regard to a delay of 14 months between the offence and the applicant’s arrest.
2.The sentencing judge erred in finding that the Regulator’s need to know about the applicant’s offence…

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 Waite

Details

AGLC: R v Waite [2017] QCA 270
Case: [2017] QCA 270
Decision Date: 10 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waite involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to one count of supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine. The primary dispute in this case was the sentence imposed on the appellant, specifically the fine and the recording of a conviction. The case was heard by the court of appeal, where the appellant sought to challenge the sentence imposed on her.

The central legal issues addressed by the court were whether the delay between the offence and the appellant's arrest should have been considered as a mitigating factor and whether the recording of a conviction would interfere with her ability to obtain employment as a childcare worker. The appellant argued that the delay in her arrest and the recording of a conviction were significant factors that should have been considered in determining her sentence.

The court of appeal considered the arguments presented by the appellant and examined the circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the delay between the offence and the arrest and had taken it into account in the sentencing process. Furthermore, the court determined that the recording of a conviction was not excessive, given the nature of the offence. The court held that the appellant's ability to work as a childcare worker would not be unduly affected by the recording of a conviction, as the offence did not involve any direct harm to children.

As a result, the court of appeal refused the appellant's application for leave to appeal against her sentence. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and the arguments presented by the appellant did not warrant interference with the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Waite [2017] QCA 270
PARTIES:	R v WAITE, Eliza Camille (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 277 of 2016 DC No 1649 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 14 September 2016 (Moynihan QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	10 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2017
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Brown J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted following her plea of guilty to one count of supplying the dangerous drug methylamphetamine – where the applicant received a fine and a conviction was recorded – where the applicant was 28 years old at the time of the offending and 30 years old at sentence – where the applicant contended that the delay between the offence and her arrest should have been a mitigating factor – where the applicant contended that the recording of a conviction would interfere with her ability to obtain employment as a childcare worker – whether the sentencing judge erred in recording the conviction Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 12 Working with Children (Risk Management and Screening) Act 2000 (Qld), s 167, s 168, s 221, s 226, s 323, s 357F Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited R v Briese; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1998] 1 Qd R 487; [1997] QCA 10, cited R v Cox; R v Cuffe; R v Morrison (2013) 92 ATR 80; [2013] QCA 10, applied R v L; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [1996] 2 Qd R 63; [1995] QCA 444, applied
COUNSEL:	E A Mac Giolla Ri for the applicant J A Wooldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Russo Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent