Court of Appeal

R v Lincoln; R v Kister; R v Renwick [2017] QCA 037 (16/159) Margaret McMurdo P and Morrison and Philippides JJA 17 March 2017

Full-text: QCA17-037.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant Lincoln pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of possessing a dangerous drug methylamphetamine exceeding 2 grams – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for manslaughter and two years cumulative imprisonment for the drug offence with parole eligibility set after five years – where the applicant is a New Zealand citizen residing in Australia – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the primary judge failed to take into account the hardship that will flow from the cancellation of his visa and his consequent removal and exclusion from Australia upon being released on parole – where the applicant had lived in Australia for more than 20 years and was married with five children – whether the judge erred in not taking account of the applicant’s possible removal and exclusion from Australia by the immigration authorities upon his release on parole – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant Renwick pleaded guilty to one count of accessory after the fact to manslaughter – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 20 months – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive because the primary judge failed to take into account his attempts to assist authorities in finding the deceased’s remains and the risks associated with those attempts as well as the delay between the offence and sentence as relevant to his rehabilitation – where the applicant’s attempts to locate the deceased’s remains were unsuccessful – where the offending contributed to the delay in prosecuting the matter – whether the primary judge erred in giving little weight to the assistance provided by the applicant and the alleged associated risk – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant Kister pleaded guilty to one count of accessory after the fact to manslaughter – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 12 months – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive as he was considerably less culpable than his co-offender – where the co-offender Renwick pleaded guilty to one count of accessory after the fact to manslaughter and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after 20 months – where the applicant was aged 21 at the time of the offence and played a lesser role in the offending – where the co-offender was aged 36 at the time of the offence and was involved in the offending from an earlier stage – whether the applicant’s earlier parole eligibility sufficiently reflected the difference in age, involvement and prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant Lincoln pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of possessing a dangerous drug methylamphetamine exceeding 2 grams – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for manslaughter and two years cumulative imprisonment for the drug offence with parole eligibility set after five years or 45 per cent of his sentence – where the applicant contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the disparity between his non-parole period and that of his co-offender amounted to an error – where his co-offender pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at one third – where the applicant’s culpability was far greater than any of his co-offenders – where the applicant planned the abduction of the deceased – where the applicant was motivated by a drug debt owed to him by the deceased and a bounty offered by an outlaw motorcycle gang – whether the head sentence and parole eligibility date combined when compared to the sentences imposed on his co-offenders can give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance