Singh v QPS - [2013] QDC 37

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Singh v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 37

PARTIES:

CHRISTOPHER DALE SINGH
(appellant)

AND

SENIOR CONSTABLE JAY INGRAM
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

D3/13

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Section 222 Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Bundaberg

DELIVERED ON:

20^th February 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Bundaberg

HEARING DATE:

13th February 2013

JUDGE:

Robertson DCJ

ORDER:

Appeal Dismissed

RE-OPENED:

1^stMarch 2013

FURTHER ORDER:

1.    Order the notice of appeal be amended to include new ground.

2.    Appeal allowed

3.    Order dismissing appeal set aside and in lieu thereof order for each offence concurrent terms of three months

4.    Declare that the defendant has spent 114 days in pre-sentence custody in relation to those sentences between 5^th November 2013 and 1^st March 2013 and declare that to be time already served

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL: where appellant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of breach of a domestic violence order; where appellant was 25 and had been in a de facto relationship with the complainant for 5 years; where violence occurred in their home in front of their 3 young children

SENTENCE: where appellant sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each charge followed by 2 years probation; where he had relevant criminal history including 4 previous convictions for similar offending against the same woman; whether Magistrate did not take plea of guilty sufficiently into account thus rendering the sentence manifestly excessive

RE-OPENING: where Miers v Blewett [2013] QCA 23 delivered by Court of Appeal on 22^nd February 2013, where decision brought to attention of parties that day; where order dismissing appeal set aside by consent pursuant to rule 667(2)(e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules; whether absence reliance upon previous convictions the sentence was manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012 (Qld)

Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld)

Cases:

CCR v QPS [2010] QDC 486

Miers v Blewett [2013] QCA 23

R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 523

R v James [2012] QCA 256

Washband v Queensland Police Service [2009] QDC 243

COUNSEL:

Mr E MacGiollaRi for the appellant

Mr A Stark for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Charlton Lawyers for the appellant

ODOPP

Reasons for judgment

Christopher Dale Singh (the appellant) was convicted in the Bundaberg Magistrates Court on 6 December 2012 on his own plea of guilty of three counts:

1. On the fourth day of November 2012 at Bundaberg … (he) broke a condition of the undertaking into which he entered on the sixth day of October 2012 at the Bundaberg police watchhouse, namely, the defendant is not to contact AZ directly or indirectly.

2. On the fourth day of November 2012 at Bundaberg in the Magistrates Court of Bundaberg … (he) being a respondent against whom a domestic violence order had been made contravened the order, namely, the temporary protection order made on 26 September 2012 in the Magistrates Court at Bundaberg and (he) had been served with a copy…

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 Singh v QPS

Details

AGLC: Singh v QPS [2013] QDC 37
Case: [2013] QDC 37
Decision Date: 20 February 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Singh v QPS, the appellant, who had a history of domestic violence against his former partner, pleaded guilty to two counts of breaching a domestic violence order. The appellant, aged 25, had been in a de facto relationship with the complainant for five years, during which he had committed acts of violence in their home in front of their three young children. The court sentenced the appellant to nine months imprisonment for each charge, followed by two years of probation. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing that the magistrate had not adequately taken into account his guilty plea, making the sentence manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the magistrate had failed to consider the appellant's guilty plea sufficiently, and if the absence of reliance on previous convictions rendered the sentence manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that his plea of guilty should have warranted a lesser sentence, particularly given his history of similar offences against the same complainant. The court needed to assess the appropriate weight to give to the appellant's guilty plea and the relevance of his prior convictions.

The Queensland Court of Appeal considered the relevant legal principles and precedents, including the decision in Miers v Blewett [2013] QCA 23, which was brought to the attention of the parties. The court examined the sentencing remarks of the magistrate and the overall context of the case. The appeal was dismissed as the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's history of domestic violence and the serious impact on the complainant and their children. The order dismissing the appeal was set aside by consent pursuant to rule 667(2)(e) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.

The final order was that the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the magistrate. The court concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal Dismissed

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:	Singh v Queensland Police Service [2013] QDC 37
PARTIES:	CHRISTOPHER DALE SINGH (appellant) AND SENIOR CONSTABLE JAY INGRAM (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	D3/13
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Section 222 Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED ON:	20^th February 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Bundaberg
HEARING DATE:	13th February 2013
JUDGE:	Robertson DCJ
ORDER:	Appeal Dismissed
RE-OPENED:	1^stMarch 2013
FURTHER ORDER:	1. Order the notice of appeal be amended to include new ground. 2. Appeal allowed 3. Order dismissing appeal set aside and in lieu thereof order for each offence concurrent terms of three months 4. Declare that the defendant has spent 114 days in pre-sentence custody in relation to those sentences between 5^th November 2013 and 1^st March 2013 and declare that to be time already served
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL: where appellant pleaded guilty to 2 counts of breach of a domestic violence order; where appellant was 25 and had been in a de facto relationship with the complainant for 5 years; where violence occurred in their home in front of their 3 young children SENTENCE: where appellant sentenced to 9 months imprisonment on each charge followed by 2 years probation; where he had relevant criminal history including 4 previous convictions for similar offending against the same woman; whether Magistrate did not take plea of guilty sufficiently into account thus rendering the sentence manifestly excessive RE-OPENING: where Miers v Blewett [2013] QCA 23 delivered by Court of Appeal on 22^nd February 2013, where decision brought to attention of parties that day; where order dismissing appeal set aside by consent pursuant to rule 667(2)(e) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules; whether absence reliance upon previous convictions the sentence was manifestly excessive Legislation: Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act2012 (Qld) Justices Act 1886 (Qld) Penalties and Sentences Act1992 (Qld) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Cases: CCR v QPS [2010] QDC 486 Miers v Blewett [2013] QCA 23 R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [1997] 1 Qd R 523 R v James [2012] QCA 256 Washband v Queensland Police Service [2009] QDC 243
COUNSEL:	Mr E MacGiollaRi for the appellant Mr A Stark for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Charlton Lawyers for the appellant ODOPP