DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Willich v Queensland Police Service [2017] QDC 300
PARTIES:
PHILIP RAYMOND WILLICH
(appellant)v
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(respondent)FILE NO/S:
APPEAL NO: 137/17
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court, Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
11 December 2017
DELIVERED AT:
Cairns
HEARING DATE:
23 November 2017
JUDGE:
Morzone QC DCJ
ORDER:
1. Appeal dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - appeal pursuant to s 222 Justices Act 1886 - conviction on guilty plea – appeal against sentence – common assault – deprivation of liberty – unlawful possession of weapons – short firearms in public – producing dangerous drugs – possessing dangerous drugs – possess utensils or pipes – prohibited explosives – explosives – breach of bail – mode of hearing of appeal – whether the cumulative term of imprisonment for the weapons offence was an error of law and resulted in manifestly excessive sentence – whether sentence of more than 12 months imprisonment for the common assault and deprivation of liberty was excessive in the circumstances – whether a conviction ought be recorded for drug offence.
Legislation
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), ss16, 335.
Bail Act 1980 (Qld), s 29.
Drugs Misuse Act 1986 (Qld), ss 8, 9 10.
Explosives Act 1999 (Qld), s 11.
Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 223(1) & 227.
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), ss 9, 156.
Weapons Act 1990 (Qld), s 50.Cases
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Kentwell v R (2014) 252 CLR 60
Pearce v. The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Boggs [2014] QCA 31
R v Bowditch [2014] QCA 157
R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442
R v Gordon; Ex parte A-G [1975] Qd R 301
R v Jackson [2011] QCA 103
R v James (Unreported 7/12/2012, QDC, Farr SC DCJ)
R v Lidbetter [2009] QCA 6
R v Lui [2009] QCA 366
R v R and S; ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 181
R v Tricklebank [1994] 1 Qd R 330
R v Wong (2001) 207 CLR 584COUNSEL: P Feeney of counsel for the Appellant
G Meoli prosecutor for the RespondentSOLICITORS: Richardson & Eckersley Lawyers for the Appellant
The Office of Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
On 12 July 2017 the appellant was convicted and sentenced to an effective 3 years imprisonment with a minimum of 12 months to serve before being released on parole in relation to 7 charges in the Magistrates Court held in Cairns. He now appeals his sentence.
Both parties provided outlines of argument, and made further submissions at, and after the hearing of the appeal, which I have considered.
Background
After unsuccessfully trying to order a pizza by telephone, the appellant went to the pizza store, coaxed the manager outside and berated him, before demanding he apologise on his knees while pointing a gun to his head.
On 12 July 2017 the appellant was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of:
1. Common assault;
2. Deprivation of liberty;
3.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Willich v Queensland Police Service and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2017] QDC 300
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the cumulative term of imprisonment for the weapons offence constituted an error of law that resulted in a manifestly excessive sentence. Another issue was whether the sentence of more than 12 months imprisonment for the common assault and deprivation of liberty was excessive, given the circumstances. Lastly, the court needed to determine whether a conviction should have been recorded for the drug offence.
The court examined the sentencing principles applicable to the charges and the appellant's criminal history. It found that the cumulative term of imprisonment for the weapons offence was not an error of law and was not manifestly excessive. The court also held that the sentence for the common assault and deprivation of liberty was not excessive in the circumstances, given the seriousness of the offences and the appellant's criminal history. Lastly, the court ruled that a conviction should be recorded for the drug offence, as the evidence supported the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were upheld. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and in accordance with the law.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. 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.