Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-05-18|Before: McMurdo P, Williams JA and Chesterman J, Separate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
McMurdo P, Williams JA and Chesterman J, Separate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION
– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
– APPEAL BY
CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE– APPEAL BYCONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED– PARTICULAR OFFENCES –SEXUAL OFFENCES – whether sentence wasmanifestly excessive given principles of totality – whether mitigatingfactorswere given adequate weightCRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION– APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE– APPEAL BYATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATION TO INCREASESENTENCE – OFFENCES AGAINST THEPERSON – whether life imprisonmentwarranted – whether Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992has application – interaction between Part 9A of the Penalties andSentences Act 1992 and s 229B of the Criminal CodeCriminal Code s 299B(2)Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 s
19
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2), s 13,
s 161B(2), s 189(1), Part 9A
KRM v The Queen [2001] HCA 11,
8 March 2001, referred to
R v A [2000] QCA 520, 19 December 2000,
referred to
R v H [2001] QCA 167, CA No 40 of 2001, 1 May 2001,
considered
R v Ianculescu [1999] QCA 439
[2000] 2 Qd R 521, referred to
R v
KBT (1997) 191 CLR 417, considered
R v L [1996] QCA 316, CA No 173
of 1996, 17 July 1996, referred to
R v Mason and Saunders [1997] QCA 421
[1998] 2 Qd
R 186, referred to
R v Ruhland CA No 147 of 1999, 15 October 1999,
considered
R v S [1998] QCA 71
[1999] 2 Qd R 89, referred to
R v Truong
[2000] 1 Qd R 663, referred to
Judgment (12 paragraphs)
[1]
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
In my view, by continuing to offend after that date the applicant became subject to that regime and it would not be appropriate for the Court to engage in a discounting exercise in respect of acts committed before 1 July 1997. This, I think, is consistent with the approach also taken by the High Court in Siganto v The Queen[1998] HCA 74; (1998) 194 CLR 656."