R v Weeding

[2007] QCA 311

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Weeding [2007] QCA 311

PARTIES:

R
v
WEEDING, Raymond John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 82 of 2007
DC No 67 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

28 September 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2007

JUDGES:

Keane JA, Cullinane and Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application 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 – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to 10 property offences and two assaults – where applicant sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of four and a half years for the property offences and 18 months for the assaults with parole eligibility after
13 months – whether sentence manifestly excessive – whether applicant should have been given parole release date

R v Gates [2002] QCA 320; CA No 99 of 2002, 23 August 2002, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

1. KEANE JA:  On 15 March 2007, the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of six counts of burglary and stealing, three counts of burglary by breaking, one count of burglary, and two counts of common assault.  The offences were committed between April and October 2006 but most of them were committed after his release from prison in September 2006. 

1. The applicant was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment in respect of each of the property offences and to a concurrent term of 18 months in respect of the assaults.  The learned sentencing judge fixed a parole eligibility date of 7 April 2008.

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.  In particular, the applicant contends that he should have been given a parole release date rather than a parole eligibility date on the footing that he would have better prospects of rehabilitation in the community and he apprehends that the authorities will not give proper consideration to the merits of his application for parole when it is made.

1. There is no merit in the applicant's contention.  Having regard to the seriousness of his offending and his disturbing criminal history, the sentence which was imposed was distinctly moderate, and it was entirely appropriate for the learned primary judge to fashion a sentence which obliged the applicant to demonstrate to the authorities that he should be given parole when he becomes eligible.

1. The offences in question were serious.  They involved entering 10 houses, a number of which were occupied by elderly persons at the time of the offence.  On two occasions, the applicant assaulted the…