//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] QCA 188
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2001-05-18
McMurdo P, Williams JA and Chesterman J, Separate reasons for judgment of, each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
Original judgment source is linked above.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
[2] [2001] QCA 167; CA No 40 of 2001, 1 May 2001.
[7] [1999] QCA 439; [2000] 2 Qd R 521, 528.
[9] This was renumbered as s 229B(2); Act No 3 of 1997, s 33 opn 1 July 1997.
[10] [2001] HCA 11, 8 March 2001, McHugh J at [68], Kirby J at [82], [102].
[11] [1998] QCA 71; [1999] 2 Qd R 89, 91-92.
[12] [1996] QCA 316, CA No 173 of 1996, 17 July 1996, p 10.
[13] [2000] QCA 520, 19 December 2000.
[14] [2001] QCA 167, CA No 40 of 2001, 1 May 2001.
[15] [2001] QCA 167, CA No 40 of 2001, 1 May 2001, 8.
R
P; ex parte A-G
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 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 S [1998] QCA 71; [1999] 2 Qd R 89, referred to
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."
(1997) 191 CLR 417
(1998) 194 CLR 656