Court of Appeal (Qld)|2001-05-11|Before: Thomas and Williams JJA, White JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as the orders made
Thomas and Williams JJA, White JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as the orders made
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT
AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN
INTO ACCOUNT –
MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON BAIL OR PAROLE AND
Source
Original judgment source is linked above.
Catchwords
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENTAND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKENINTO ACCOUNT –MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON BAIL OR PAROLE ANDEFFECT OF BREACH OF PAROLE - whereapplicant on parole at time of committingoffences – considering the statutory framework for sentencing, the‘totalityprinciple’ cannot be applied directly – the functionof the sentencing judge is to impose a sentence having regard tothe criminalityof the current offencesin doing so s 9 Penalties and Sentences Actrequires the Judge to consider that the sentence will be cumulative upon asentence for past offences CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL ANDINQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINSTSENTENCE– APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCESENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES –OFFENCES
AGAINST THE PERSON –where applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding,
being in a dwelling with intent to commit
an indictable offence and wilfully and
unlawfully destroying a toilet – a starting point of four to five years
imprisonment
is too high for the offence of wounding – a starting point of
no more than three years is appropriateCorrective Services Act
1988 (Qld), s 187, 190, 207B Criminal Code (Qld), s 323
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(a), s 9(2)(l) and (m), s
156A, Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 8,
s 9Harris v Muirhead [1993] 2 Qd R 527, cited
R v Anderson CA No 90 of 1998, 11 September 1998,
consideredR v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206
[2000] 2 Qd R 183,
appliedR v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, considered
R v Briese ex parte A-G [1997] QCA 10
[1998] 1 Qd R 487
(1997) 92 A Crim R 75,
citedR v Coonan CA No 83 of 1995, 26 April 1995,
appliedR v Byrnes CA No 126 of 1999, 18 June 1999, considered
R v Maclean and Bannerman [2000] QCA 367
CA Nos 71 and 98 of 2000, 12
September 2000, consideredR v Meehan CA No 128 of
1996, 5 June 1996, appliedR v Mill [1988] HCA 70
(1988) 166 CLR 59, citedR v
Pettigrew [1996] QCA 235
[1997] 1 Qd R 601, cited
Judgment (17 paragraphs)
[1]
CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS - OFFENCE COMMITTED WHILE ON BAIL OR PAROLE AND EFFECT OF BREACH OF PAROLE - where applicant on parole at time of committing offences - considering the statutory framework for sentencing, the 'totality principle' cannot be applied directly - the function of the sentencing judge is to impose a sentence having regard to the criminality of the current offences; in doing so s 9 Penalties and Sentences Act requires the Judge to consider that the sentence will be cumulative upon a sentence for past offences
[2]
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - WHEN GRANTED - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON -where applicant pleaded guilty to unlawful wounding, being in a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence and wilfully and unlawfully destroying a toilet - a starting point of four to five years imprisonment is too high for the offence of wounding - a starting point of no more than three years is appropriate
[3]
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld), s 187, 190, 207B