R v Watkins - [2003] QCA 437

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Watkins [2003] QCA 437
PARTIES: R
v
WATKINS, Daniel Patrick
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 244 of 2003 DC No 305 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Sentence (Extension)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED 13 October 2003
EXTEMPORE
ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 13 October 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Davies JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application for extension of time within which to appeal
against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to offences of burglary and assault - where applicant sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment - where applicant accompanied another to complainant's home to recover money - where premises mistaken for those of debtor - where complainants affected psychologically by home invasion and assault - where applicant has substantial criminal record - where applicant's criminal record did not involve offences of violence - whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Houghton and Genrich [1998] QCA 137; CA No 424 of
1997 and CA No 425 of 1997, 26 February 1998, cited
R v Kennedy [2000] QCA 48; CA No 355 of 1999,
28 February 2000, cited
R v Palmer [1998] QCA 293, CA No 181 of 1998, 6 August
1998, cited

COUNSEL: T J Fitzgibbon (sol) (Kirwan) for applicant
M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS: Alex Nelson & Associates (Kirwan) for applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Davies will deliver his reasons first.

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 29 May this year to six offences all committed on 14 July 2002. These offences were burglary, two of assault and three of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed and in company. All arose out of the one episode. He was sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment on the burglary offence and twelve months imprisonment concurrent with the first sentence in respect of each of the other counts.

On 23 July the applicant filed a notice of application for extension of time within which to appeal against those sentences and this is the hearing of that application. As appears from what I will say and what I have said so far, the delay in filing the application was short and the explanation which the applicant gives for it, that it was the failure of his solicitors to file the application within time notwithstanding his prompt instructions to do so, has been accepted by the respondent as satisfactory. I agree with that.

However, that is not the end of the matter. There is no point in granting the application to extend time if an appeal against a principle sentence of two years and nine months has no…

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 Watkins

Details

AGLC: R v Watkins [2003] QCA 437
Case: [2003] QCA 437
Decision Date: 13/10/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Watkins involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to offences of burglary and assault. The applicant had accompanied another individual to the complainant's home with the intent to recover money, mistakenly believing the premises to be those of a debtor. The complainants suffered significant psychological effects from the home invasion and assault. The applicant had a substantial criminal record, although it did not include prior offences of violence. The applicant was sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment, leading to a challenge on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the psychological impact on the complainants, and the applicant's criminal history. The court was required to balance these factors against the severity of the sentence. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate given the non-violent nature of his criminal history and the lack of personal gain from the burglary.

The court considered the seriousness of the offence, noting the psychological harm inflicted on the complainants and the applicant's mistaken belief about the identity of the premises. Despite the applicant's substantial criminal record, the court emphasised that the absence of previous violent offences should be a mitigating factor. However, the court concluded that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive. It appropriately reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to protect the community and deter similar criminal behaviour. The application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time within which to appeal

against sentence 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 Watkins [2003] QCA 437
PARTIES:	R v WATKINS, Daniel Patrick (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 244 of 2003 DC No 305 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Sentence (Extension)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Townsville
DELIVERED	13 October 2003
EXTEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 October 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Davies JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to offences of burglary and assault - where applicant sentenced to two years and nine months imprisonment - where applicant accompanied another to complainant's home to recover money - where premises mistaken for those of debtor - where complainants affected psychologically by home invasion and assault - where applicant has substantial criminal record - where applicant's criminal record did not involve offences of violence - whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Houghton and Genrich [1998] QCA 137; CA No 424 of

COUNSEL:	T J Fitzgibbon (sol) (Kirwan) for applicant M J Copley for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Alex Nelson & Associates (Kirwan) for applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent