RMC v QPS

Case [2020] QDC 291

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

RMC v QPS [2020] QDC 291

PARTIES:

RMC

(appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE

(respondent)

FILE NO:

Appeal No 71 of 2020

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court, Mareeba

DELIVERED ON:

13 November 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Cairns

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2020

JUDGE:

Morzone QC DCJ

ORDER:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   The sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court made in Mareeba on 6 April 2020 are set aside, and I substitute the following orders:

(a)      The appellant is not further punished.

(b)      No convictions will be recorded for each offence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 - conviction – indecent act – mode of hearing of appeal – error of law –– whether conviction unreasonable and unsupported – whether sentence manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) ss 222, 223(1) & 227

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 9, 12

CASES:

Allesch v Maunz (2000) 203 CLR 172

Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499

Lovell v Lovell (1950) 81 CLR 513

R v McCandles [2006] QCA 199

R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98

R v Mules [2007] QCA 47

R v Norris; ex parte Attorney General (2018) 3 Qd R

R v UE [2016] QCA 58
COUNSEL:

R Logan for the Appellant

E Coker for the Respondent
SOLICITORS:

Cuthbertson & Co Lawyers for the Appellant

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent.

  1. On 6 April 2020, the appellant was convicted of two counts of indecent acts after pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court held in Mareeba and was sentenced to 4 months and 2 months imprisonment ordered to be served cumulatively.  34 days were declared as pre-sentence custody.

  2. The appellant now appeals his sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly excessive.

  3. The appellant contends that a probation order without a conviction recorded was appropriate.  The respondent seeks to uphold the sentence and conviction as within a permissible range.

    Mode of Appeal

  4. The appellant appeals pursuant to s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld). Pursuant to section 223 of the appeal is by way of rehearing on the original evidence, and any new evidence adduced by leave.

  5. For an appeal by way of rehearing “the powers of the appellate court are exercisable only where the appellant can demonstrate that, having regard to all the evidence now before the appellate court, the order that is the subject of the appeal is the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error,”[1] and thereby resulting in a manifestly excessive sentence.

  6. The rehearing requires this court to conduct a…

Continue reading RMC v QPS

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
RMC v Queensland Police Service [2020] QDC 291
Case
[2020] QDC 291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of RMC v QPS involved an appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court in Mareeba. The appellant, RMC, was convicted of multiple offences including an indecent act. The nature of the appeal was pursuant to section 222 of the Justices Act 1886, focusing on whether the conviction was unreasonable and unsupported, as well as whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with determining these critical legal questions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the conviction of the appellant was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and that the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed. The court had to carefully review the evidence presented in the original hearing and assess the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence.

In considering these issues, the court found that the conviction was unreasonable and unsupported by the evidence, leading to the conclusion that it was unsafe and unsatisfactory. Additionally, the court determined that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the nature of the offence and the circumstances surrounding it. The court’s reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of the evidence and the principles of sentencing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the convictions and sentences were set aside.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal, set aside the sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court, and substitute the following orders: (a) the appellant is not further punished, and (b) no convictions will be recorded for each offence. This outcome effectively nullifies the original convictions and prevents any further punishment or recording of convictions against the appellant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. The sentence and orders of the Magistrates Court made in Mareeba on 6 April 2020 are set aside, and I substitute the following orders:

(a) The appellant is not further punished.

(b) No convictions will be recorded for each offence.

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.