Court of Appeal

R v Maclure [2017] QCA 062 (16/315) Fraser and Morrison JJA and Boddice J 11 April 2017

Full-text: QCA17-062.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant plead guilty on 6 October 2015 to one count of arson of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment wholly suspended for an operational period of three years – where the applicant committed further offences including dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, unlawful possession of weapons, possession of dangerous drugs, obstructing a police officer, driving whilst disqualified, failing to provide a specimen for breath for analysis, and failing to stop his motor vehicle – where the applicant was convicted of these offences on 20 June 2016 and sentenced to an effective head sentence of 10 months imprisonment – where on 21 October 2016 the original sentencing judge found a breach of suspended sentence proven and activated the whole of the suspended sentence with a parole release date fixed at 20 April 2017 – where the applicant contends the sentencing judge failed to consider mitigating steps undertaken by the applicant – where the respondent contends the sentencing judge rightly exercised their discretion – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE/OTHER MATTERS – where the responded submits the sentencing judge erred in fixing a parole release date in circumstances where an cumulative period of imprisonment would exceed three years – where s 160C of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) would be enlivened – whether the sentencing judge’s true intention was the imposed length of imprisonment or the fixing of a date for release on parole – whether the sentencing judge erred in fixing a parole release date