R v Abbott [2001] QSC 281

Supreme Court of Queensland|2001-06-27|Before: Mackenzie J

the applicant, there is no basis for characterising what is

said to be an error as a factual error. The application

authorities relied on are distinguishable is that, as

there was no mistaken expectation that the applicant would

or was likely to receive reduction in the time to be spent

in custody following the cancellation of his parole. (See

the sentencing submissions, particularly at page 5, line 15,

and following and the sentence reasons page 4, line 28).

applicant, on the proposition that because of his breach of

parole by committing multiple sequential offences, serving

the whole unexpired term of the previous sentences was a

distinct likelihood. The imposition of a short cumulative

sentence, while recognising that, was thought appropriate.

I note in passing that in argument today the subject of the

failure to put accurate information before the trial Judge,

in the context of a party being bound by the way in which

the case was conducted, was touched on. It is not necessary

to resolve that issue today. However, one would imagine

that there must be some limit on using section 188 in a case

of subsequent discovery of matters which an accused might

wish to rely on to put his case in a better light. The

extent to which that notion ought to apply, where inaccurate

expectations of what might happen in the corrective system

are put before the trial Judge by the defence, need not be

The order that I make is that the application is dismissed.

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992

recommendation (The Queen v. Burton [1995] QCA 445; (1995) 83 ACrimR 453,

Thomas v. The King [1937] HCA 83; (1937) 59 CLR 279 at 306 and 307 in

At a glance