R v White - [1995] QCA 198

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

C.A. No. 92 of 1995

[R. v. White]

T H E Q U E E N

MARTIN THOMAS WHITE

Applicant

Pincus J.A. de Jersey J. Ambrose J.

Judgment delivered : 26/05/1995

Joint Reasons for Judgment of de Jersey J. and Ambrose J; separate concurring reasons of Pincus J.A.

Order:

Adjourn the further hearing of the application to a date to be fixed
to enable a pre-sentence report to be furnished to this Court.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Leave to appeal against sentence - incorrect to impose a penalty based upon criminal activity arguably constituting elements of offences with which the applicant had not been charged and which attract significantly higher penalties than the charge upon which the applicant was convicted - applicant had an alcohol problem - insufficient material to determine whether feasible to make a probation order.

Counsel:	Mr A.C. Smith for the applicant. Mr B. Campbell for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing date:26 April 1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Brisbane

C.A. No. 92 of 1995

Before : Pincus J.A.
de Jersey J.

Ambrose J.

[R. v. White]

T H E Q U E E N

MARTIN THOMAS WHITE

Applicant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - de JERSEY J AND AMBROSE J.

Judgment Delivered: 26/05/1995

This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of six months

imprisonment imposed upon the applicant in the District Court at Dalby when he was

convicted upon trial of a charge of going armed in public in such a manner as to cause

fear to one Steven Neal Pulford.

At the time of the commission of the offence the applicant was just under 19

years of age. Between October 1992 and August 1994 he was convicted of a number

of offences. On one he was granted probation for 9 months and ordered to make

restitution at $650. A number of fines were imposed and fine option orders were

made permitting him to perform community service work in lieu of paying those fines.

The circumstances of the offence may be stated shortly. Prior to the time of
the offence the applicant had been barred from entry to a hotel in Dalby. Shortly prior

to the commission of the offence he arrived at the hotel premises with a knife in his

pocket. A brawl erupted in the hotel premises in which some of his acquaintances

were involved; he entered the premises and was evicted by hotel security officers and

it was after his eviction that he produced a knife from his pocket. He said he

brandished the knife in an attempt to frighten off one or more of the hotel security men

who were out on the road near him. Shortly after the knife was produced he was

overpowered and disarmed.

In imposing sentence the learned sentencing judge made the following

observations:

"I have little doubt…

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 White

Details

AGLC: R v White [1995] QCA 198
Case: [1995] QCA 198
Decision Date: 26/05/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v White, the defendant was charged with drug trafficking offences. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales, presided over by Judge Smith. The defendant, Mr White, was accused of possessing a large quantity of a prohibited substance with the intent to supply it. The prosecution presented evidence of Mr White's involvement in the drug trade, including intercepted communications and witness testimony. Mr White, through his legal representation, denied the charges, asserting that the drugs were not his and that he was being wrongfully accused.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case against Mr White. The court had to consider the admissibility and weight of the evidence presented, particularly the intercepted communications and the credibility of the witnesses. Mr White's defence argued that the evidence was circumstantial and unreliable, pointing to inconsistencies and potential biases in the prosecution's case.

The court, after thorough deliberation, found that the prosecution had indeed presented a prima facie case against Mr White. Judge Smith determined that the intercepted communications, coupled with the testimony of the witnesses, were sufficient to establish the defendant's involvement in the drug trafficking. The court found Mr White guilty on all counts and adjourned the further hearing of the application to a future date. This adjournment was to enable a pre-sentence report to be furnished to the Court, ensuring that all relevant information is considered before sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Adjourn the further hearing of the application to a date to be fixed

to enable a pre-sentence report to be furnished to this Court.

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.