CRIMINAL APPEALS
Cross Country Realty P/L & Ors v Peebles [2006] QCA 501, CA Nos 240-242, 1 December 2006
Application for Leave s 118 DCA (Criminal) — the respondent brought complaints against each of the three applicants under the Property Agents and Motor Dealers Act 2000 (Qld) — the complaints were dismissed in the Magistrates Court as being outside of time — District Court judge ruled to the contrary — the applicants contend that the judge misinterpreted a relevant provision — whether the proceedings were brought within time — Held: application for leave to appeal refused with costs to be assessed.
R v Weldon [2006] QCA 504, CA No 232 of 2006, 1 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant pleaded guilty to 10 counts of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years with circumstances of aggravation and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment — the applicant was further convicted of one count of maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child under 16 years of age with a circumstance of aggravation — seven counts of indecent treatment of a child with circumstances of aggravation, five counts of indecent treatment of a child with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of unlawful sodomy with circumstances of aggravation, for which he received 10 years for each count to be served concurrently — the offending behaviour occurred over a period of eight years — 16 different boys were abused — whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
R v Poynter, Norman & Parker; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 517, CA Nos 235-237, 8 December 2006
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld) — Attorney-General appeal against sentences imposed on three respondents — all three respondents pleaded guilty to events arising out of their participation in a riot on Palm Island — the riot was directed at police officers and the facts of the case demonstrated a prime need for deterrent penalties — Held: appeal allowed in relation to all three offenders, with each of their sentences being increased.
R v WQ [2006] QCA 518, CA No 137 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence — the appellant was convicted by jury of two counts of rape, two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 years of age, and one count of wilfully and unlawfully exposing a child under 16 years of age to an indecent act with a circumstance of aggravation — the appellant was sentenced to seven years imprisonment for one count of rape and lesser concurrent terms for other offences — the appellant complained about alleged discrepancies or inconsistencies in the complainant’s evidence — the appellant also argued that the jury did not consider its verdict for a sufficient length of time — whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the appellant’s guilt — Held: appeal against conviction dismissed, application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
R v Kraaz [2006] QCA 520, CA No 72 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant was convicted of entering a dwelling to commit an indictable offence in company with another person and was sentenced to four years imprisonment with recommendation for parole after 18 months — the applicant contended that the sentence imposed did not reflect the level of her offending compared to her co-offenders — whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: application allowed, sentence of four years imprisonment set aside, a sentence of three years and 10 months imposed in lieu thereof.
R v Dillon; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 521, CA No 217 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld) — the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to imprisonment for three years suspended after 10 months with an operational period of three years — the respondent had a criminal history for previous drug and street offences, assault and breaching probation orders, though appears to be making genuine attempts at rehabilitation — whether the Court of Appeal should impose a sentence with a parole recommendation rather than a suspended sentence so that respondent can benefit from support and supervision — Held: sentence imposed at first instance is varied by deleting that part of the sentence suspending the term of imprisonment and instead recommending the respondent be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 15 months of that sentence, on 6 October 2007.
R v Walton [2006] QCA 522, CA No 288 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of stalking and was sentenced to six months imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of two years — the offending behaviour occurred over a period of 17 months — the volume of telephone calls made to the complainant by the applicant were evidence of determined and persistent conduct — the applicant involved the complainant’s teenage son who was a recipient of some of the abusive calls — whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
R v Brand [2006] QCA 525, CA No 253 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to three years imprisonment, suspended after nine months, with an operational period of three years — the complainant was a 72 year old man and the attack lasted for about one and a half minutes — the ill health of the applicant’s baby and the stress this caused was relied upon as a mitigating factor — whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
R v Labanon; ex parte Cth DPP [2006] QCA 529, CA No 157 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Sentence Appeal by Cth DPP — the respondent and two co-offenders were convicted of importing methylamphetamine — the respondent was a serving petty officer on a US warship and was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years — the jury reached a special verdict finding that respondent did not knowingly import illegal narcotics but recklessly did so — the primary judge took this special verdict into account when sentencing — whether the sentence imposed is manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances — Held: appeal allowed, sentence imposed at first instance set aside, respondent sentenced to imprisonment for eight years with a non-parole period of four years.
R v Mohammadi [2006] QCA 530, CA No 156 of 2006, 8 December 2006
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence — the appellant was convicted of the importation of unlawful drugs, namely methylamphetamine — the appellant was sentenced to 14 years imprisonment, with a seven year non-parole period — whether the Crown needed to establish that the drugs came from a foreign land or whether it suffices to establish passage through international waters — reliance on s 668E(1A) Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) proviso — Held: appeal against conviction dismissed, application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
R v LT [2006] QCA 534, CA No 227 of 2006, 12 December 2006
Appeal against Conviction — the appellant was convicted by jury on five counts of indecent dealing and two counts of rape and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for the rape offences and five years imprisonment for the indecent dealing offences — the trial began in Toowoomba but the jury was discharged and the matter transferred to Brisbane — there was a difference in charges on which the appellant was tried in Brisbane compared with those on which appellant’s trial in Toowoomba had proceeded — whether the appellant was convicted according to law — whether the trial took place upon an indictment containing charges on which the appellant was to be tried — Held: appeal allowed, convictions set aside, new trial ordered on all counts.
R v Ndizeye [2006] QCA 537, CA No 286 of 2006, 15 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant pleaded guilty to making a false statutory declaration and was sentenced to 175 hours unpaid community service, disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for four months and a conviction was recorded — the applicant has a disadvantaged background and has limited employment opportunities — whether the conviction should be recorded — Held: application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed, conviction not recorded.
R v Nguyen [2006] QCA 542, CA No 274 of 2006, 15 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant pleaded guilty to unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment, with a serious violent offence declaration — whether the sentencing judge paid adequate regard to the applicant’s good work history and favourable references — whether the applicant’s plea of guilty was properly reflected in the sentence — whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
R v Miles [2006] QCA 556, CA No 266 of 2006, 19 December 2006
Appeal against Conviction & Sentence — the applicant was convicted by a jury of dishonestly applying to her own use property belonging to another of a value of more than $5,000 — on 7 September 2006 the applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 8 August 2007 — the applicant withdrew money totalling $19,373.23 from an account of the complainant using the complainant’s telephone banking facility — the complainant had lived with the applicant for some months while convalescing — whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: appeal against conviction dismissed, application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
R v Lam [2006] QCA 560, CA No 308 of 2006, 22 December 2006
Sentence Application — the applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of assault occasioning bodily harm in company and was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count — the offences were committed within the extended operational period of a suspended sentence imposed in August 2001 and extended in November 2004, and also within the operational period of a suspended sentence imposed in November 2004 for separate offences — the sentencing judge ordered that the applicant serve the balance of the suspended sentences — whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — Held: application for leave to appeal granted, appeal allowed to the limited extent of setting aside the order that the applicant serve the balance of the term of imprisonment imposed on 6 August 2001.
R v Anderson [2006] QCA 563, CA No 152 of 2006, 22 December 2006
Sentence Application — the appellant was sentenced with 13 offences of dishonesty — a single sentence of imprisonment was imposed for all counts — the court omitted to make pre-sentence custody declaration — whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive — whether single sentence for all counts could be properly imposed — HELD: application for leave to appeal against sentence allowed, appeal allowed.
R v Cifuentes [2006] QCA 566, CA No 281 of 2006, 22 December 2006
Sentence Application — applicant was a police officer — applicant had demanded property with threats — applicant pleaded guilty to both counts after seeing strong case against him — whether sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances — HELD: application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Coulter v Ryan [2006] QCA 567, CA No 247 of 2006, 22 December 2006
Application for leave under s 118 DCA (Criminal) — the applicant made application for costs upon an adjournment in the Magistrates Court — the application was refused — appeal made to the District under s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld) — the District Court judge dismissed the appeal — whether appeal can properly be brought with respect to an interim costs order — whether the order made can be so characterised — whether the Court of Appeal can entertain such an appeal under s 118 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) — whether the case is one in which it would be appropriate to grant leave — Held: appeal dismissed.
R v Tichowitsch [2006] QCA 569, CA No 280 of 2006, 22 December 2006
Appeal against conviction — the appellant was convicted by jury of one count of indecently dealing with a child under 12 years and in his care — the trial judge provided the jury with the transcript of evidence from trial — whether provision of transcript evidence deprived the appellant of a fair trial — the trial judge was advised by a note from the jury that a juror’s stepdaughter had previously alleged rape but had not pursued charges — the juror had said that they could give the appellant “benefit of the doubt” — the appellant’s counsel sought discharge of the jury — whether the trial judge erred in failing to discharge the jury — the appellant claims a warning in the nature of the kind found in Robinson v The Queen was required — the warning was not given — whether the trial judge erred in failing to give such a warning — HELD: appeal against conviction dismissed.