R v Ward - [2024] QCA 243

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ward [2024] QCA 243

PARTIES:

R
v
WARD, Zachariah James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 187 of 2024
DC No 1376 of 2024
DC No 1605 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 September 2024 (Rafter SC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

29 November 2024

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 October 2024

JUDGES:

Bowskill CJ and Bond JA and Vaughan AJA

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, on his pleas of guilty, of one count of unlawful possession of ten or more weapons (an offence under s 50(1)(a) of the Weapons Act) and one count of manufacturing weapons whilst not licensed (an offence under s 69(1A) of the Weapons Act) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for the first offence and a concurrent term of two years’ imprisonment for the second offence – where the sentences were ordered to be suspended after serving six months’ imprisonment for an operational period of four years – where the applicant contends that, having regard to R v Wilson [2022] QCA 18, the result of the sentence imposed was “unreasonable and plainly unjust” – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the sentencing judge noted the lack of comparable cases to provide a yardstick for the appropriate penalty and referred to a New South Wales decision, Fraser v R [2022] NSWCCA 253 – where the sentencing judge had regard to “hypothetical risks” to the community, being the possibility of misuse of the weapons which were not stored securely – whether the sentencing judge erred in having regard to the decision of Fraser v R – whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account the “hypothetical risks” to the community – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to provide the applicant with the benefit of special leniency consequent upon his admissions made at the time of the police search – whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the delay in the applicant being charged relevant to his rehabilitation, the cessation of his military payments arising from his incarceration and/or his relative youth – whether the exercise of the sentencing discretion was affected by specific error

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 50(1), s 50(2), s 69(1A)

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, considered
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41, cited
Fraser v R [2022] NSWCCA 253, considered
Hili v The Queen (2010)…

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 Ward

Details

AGLC: R v Ward [2024] QCA 243
Case: [2024] QCA 243
Decision Date: 29 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ward, was convicted on his pleas of guilty to one count of unlawful possession of ten or more weapons and one count of manufacturing weapons whilst not licensed. He was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for the first offence and a concurrent term of two years’ imprisonment for the second offence, with the sentences ordered to be suspended after serving six months’ imprisonment for an operational period of four years. Ward sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive or inadequate. He contended that the sentence imposed was unreasonable and plainly unjust, citing R v Wilson [2022] QCA 18.

The court examined whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, noting that the sentencing judge had limited comparable cases to guide the appropriate penalty. The sentencing judge referred to the New South Wales case of Fraser v R [2022] NSWCCA 253 and considered hypothetical risks to the community due to the insecure storage of the weapons. The court assessed whether the sentencing judge erred in referring to the decision in Fraser v R, in taking into account hypothetical risks, and in failing to provide Ward with the benefit of special leniency for his admissions at the time of the police search. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the delay in charging Ward, the cessation of his military payments due to his incarceration, and his relative youth. The court ultimately determined whether the exercise of the sentencing discretion was affected by specific error.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion, taking into account all relevant factors and providing adequate reasons for the sentence imposed. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and there was no basis for interference.

No further orders were made.

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 Ward [2024] QCA 243
PARTIES:	R v WARD, Zachariah James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 187 of 2024 DC No 1376 of 2024 DC No 1605 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 September 2024 (Rafter SC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	29 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 October 2024
JUDGES:	Bowskill CJ and Bond JA and Vaughan AJA
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, on his pleas of guilty, of one count of unlawful possession of ten or more weapons (an offence under s 50(1)(a) of the Weapons Act) and one count of manufacturing weapons whilst not licensed (an offence under s 69(1A) of the Weapons Act) – where the applicant was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for the first offence and a concurrent term of two years’ imprisonment for the second offence – where the sentences were ordered to be suspended after serving six months’ imprisonment for an operational period of four years – where the applicant contends that, having regard to R v Wilson [2022] QCA 18, the result of the sentence imposed was “unreasonable and plainly unjust” – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the sentencing judge noted the lack of comparable cases to provide a yardstick for the appropriate penalty and referred to a New South Wales decision, Fraser v R [2022] NSWCCA 253 – where the sentencing judge had regard to “hypothetical risks” to the community, being the possibility of misuse of the weapons which were not stored securely – whether the sentencing judge erred in having regard to the decision of Fraser v R – whether the sentencing judge erred in taking into account the “hypothetical risks” to the community – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to provide the applicant with the benefit of special leniency consequent upon his admissions made at the time of the police search – whether the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to the delay in the applicant being charged relevant to his rehabilitation, the cessation of his military payments arising from his incarceration and/or his relative youth – whether the exercise of the sentencing discretion was affected by specific error Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 3, s 50(1), s 50(2), s 69(1A) AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, considered Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (a pseudonym) (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41, cited Fraser v R [2022] NSWCCA 253, considered Hili v The Queen (2010)…