//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1996] QCA 182
Court of Appeal (Qld)
1996-06-11
Lee J, Mackenzie J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant urged that there should be no recommendation for parole, the matter being left entirely to the parole authorities in view of the grave risk of the respondent reoffending, and the fact that he has shown no benefits from any previous programs whilst in custody. It seems to us that the justice of the case is best served if a recommendation is now made that the respondent be considered for parole after serving eight years overall in custody with respect to both Western Australian and Queensland offences. This means that he would become eligible for parole on 29 August 1998 which is about one year additional to the order imposed by the District Court judge. Effectively, such a recommendation requires the respondent to serve about one-half of the notional total sentence of 16 years in any event.
Simply because a recommendation is made, it does not follow that the respondent will automatically receive parole on that date. This should depend entirely upon a very careful assessment of his progress by the relevant authorities at material times, with due attention to the risk to the community.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The sentence below on the count of rape is set aside including the recommendation as to parole. In lieu thereof the respondent is sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment to commence on 7 July 1995. The other sentences imposed on the 13 counts of indecent dealing on that date are to stand and will be served concurrently with it. The result is that five years of the sentences imposed for the Western Australian offences will also be served concurrently. A recommendation is made that the respondent be considered for parole after 29 August 1998.
R
Jensen and A-G [1996] QCA 182
Had these deliberate assertions been established, a case for mitigation of penalty would probably have existed by reason of the lapse of time since the dates the offences were committed and the date of the sentences, during which the respondent had become rehabilitated or had made good progress in that regard; R v Law (C.A. No. 176 of 1995 - 6/10/95); R v Todd [1982] 2 N.S.W.L.R. 517 at 519, 520 in a passage cited with approval by the High Court in Mill v R [1988] HCA 70; (1988) 166 C.L.R. 59 at 64.