//
[1998] QCA 462
General information, not legal advice.
Court of Appeal (Qld)
1998-12-02
Murdo P, Pincus JA, Chesterman J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant has advanced in support of his application for leave to appeal against sentence an argument that the sentence, which was one of nine months imprisonment cumulative upon previous sentences, was excessive because of his youth.
The applicant is 22 years of age. He has, however, an imposing criminal history, going back some years. He does not appear to be a person who has a great deal of respect for the law and the learned primary judge was, in my opinion, entitled to take that into account against him.
In addition to imposing a cumulative sentence of nine months, the judge altered the parole date, his previous parole date having been 31 January 2000. That was altered to 31 October 2000; that is, the date of eligibility for parole was delayed by nine months. No particular complaint is or in my opinion could be made in relation to that.
The argument advanced for the respondent has of course emphasised the undesirability of allowing this sort of attitude to be taken. It is said that it strikes at the foundation of the criminal justice system. It seems to me that the principal reason for imposing a substantial sentence, as was done in the present case, is to discourage other persons similarly minded; that is, if it becomes known that a refusal to co-operate in prosecution to the extent of giving truthful evidence against co-offenders can be dangerous, this may encourage people to decline to take refuge in either of the suggestions which the applicant made, that is that he was unwilling to participate in the prosecution of an innocent person, or that he was not, as he put it, a "maggot".
The element of deterrence looms fairly large in a case of this sort. There was a plain case of refusal to give evidence at a trial where the evidence was critical and the trial was in relation to a serious matter. Nine months imprisonment for that does not seem to me to be an excessive punishment. I would therefore refuse the application.
THE PRESIDENT: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
R
Freeman [1998] QCA 462