R v Dixon

[2019] QCA 224

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Verdict Unreasonable or Insupportable Having Regard to Evidence
4. › Whether open to jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
5. › Uncontradicted but challenged evidence of single witness
6. › Corroboration by recorded telephone conversation
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Particular Grounds of Appeal
4. › Conduct of Defence Counsel
5. › Failure to follow instructions
6. › Whether incompetent not to call witnesses or allow accused to testify
7. › Whether prospects of acquittal harmed
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Fresh Evidence on Appeal
4. › New evidence
5. › Whether combined with evidence at trial shows innocence or raises reasonable doubt
6. › Evidence that does not preclude opportunity for offending
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and New Trial
3. › Appeal Against Sentence
4. › Sentencing of non-citizen offenders
5. › Failure to address Migration Act consequences at sentencing
6. › Whether prejudice demonstrated
7. › Whether lesser sentence would be imposed on resentence
8. › Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 501(3A)
9. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 119B(1)(b)

Quick Take

Counsel's failure to address Migration Act consequences at sentencing constitutes a legitimate grievance but does not warrant appellate intervention absent demonstrated prejudice — that is, unless a lesser sentence would actually result on resentence. A sentence of 12 months imprisonment triggering mandatory visa cancellation under s 501(3A) should not be reduced merely to circumvent the Migration Act provision.