[...] additional cases were cited in argument: R v Hays (2006) 160 A Crim R 45. R v Hood [2005] 2 Qd R 54. R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79. R v McGrath [2006] 2 Qd R 58. R v Mules (CA 297/2006; Court of Appeal [...]
[...] (1957) 96 CLR 261. R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441. R v Carson (2008) 187 A Crim R 435. R v Flew (CA 23/2008; Court of Appeal, 26 September 2008, unreported); [2008] QCA 290. R v Inkerman (CA [...]
[...] August 2008, unreported); [2008] QCA 220. R v Siganto (1997) 97 A Crim R 60;141 FLR 73. R v Truong [2000] 1 Qd R 663. R v Wharley (2007) 175 A Crim R 253. Rodway v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 515 [...]
[...] [1997] QCA 316. R v Maclay (1990) 19 NSWLR 112. R v Mallard (CA 450/1997; Court of Appeal, 17 April 1998, unreported); [1998] QCA 59. R v Mason and Saunders [1998] 2 Qd R 186. R v Pora [2001] [...]
[...] Amendment Act 2003, s 29. [8] [2000] 1 Qd R 663. [9] (1999) 106 A Crim R 441. [10] R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 443–444 [10]. [11] [1998] 2 Qd R 186. [12] [1997] QCA 316. [13] As defined [...]
[...] 662 [13]. [33] R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 444 [10]. [34] Queensland Acts 1997, Explanatory Notes, Vol 1, 319; R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 444 [11]. [35] R v Breeze (1999) [...]
[...] 15 [9]. [42] [1999] 1 Qd R 670. [43] Fitzgerald P, Davies JA and Dowsett J. [44] R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 444 [10]. [45] R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 443–444 [10]. [46] [...]
[...] 515, 518, 521; Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656, 662; R v Truong [2000] 1 Qd R 663 applied. R v Mason and Saunders [1998] 2 Qd R 186 distinguished. Decision of Howell DCJ affirmed. CASES CITED [...]
[...] [2001] 2 NZLR 37. R v Robinson, ex parte Attorney-General [1999] 1 Qd R 670.341 R v S (CA 462/1998; Court of Appeal, 10 August 1999, unreported); [1999] QCA 311. R v Salsone, ex parte Attorney-General [...]
[...] Appeal, 23 February 2007, unreported); [2007] QCA 47. R v Richardson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2007) 175 A Crim R 244. R v Riley (CA 279/2007; Court of Appeal, 16 November 2007, unreported); [...]
[...] was right to apply s 9 in the form it was in at the time of sentence see R v Truong [2000] 1 Qd R 663 at [25];
Siganto v R (1998) 194 CLR 656 at 662–663. [61]The second reason is s 204 of [...]
[...] Sentences Act 1992, pt 9A. [14] (2007) 175 A Crim R 253. [15] (1990) 169 CLR 515. [16] [1999] QCA 311. [17] R v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 444 [11]. [18] Penalties and Sentences Act [...]
[...] that this contention may be inconsistent with this Courts ruling in R v Truong .[8] He emphasised, however, that, in R v Breeze ,[9] the court, differently constituted, whilst following Truong [...]
[...] re-affirmed that the reasoning of this Court in R v Mason and Saunders [11] on the question of retrospectivity should be followed. In Mason and Saunders and R v 346Inkerman & Attorney-General of Queensland [...]
[...] the court did not consider Mallard & White .[41] Since R v S , Mason and Saunders has often been followed by this Court: see, for example, R v Robinson, ex parte Attorney-General .[42] [33]It is prudent [...]
[...] [54]There are two reasons for thinking that they did. The first reason is the decision in R v Truong [2000] 1 Qd R 663. Truong committed offences involving personal violence. When he did so s 9(4) of the [...]
[...] point becomes more complicated because there are cases, the earliest of which was R v Mason and Saunders [1998] 2 Qd R 186 in which amendments to the PSA were considered not to operate retrospectively [...]
[...] performed a substantial obligation of community service imposed at first instance. R v Carson (2008) 187 A Crim R 435 is closer in point of comparison though there are dissimilarities between that case [...]
[...] material in a lasting format is a circumstance increasing the seriousness of the offence. R v Wharley (2007) 175 A Crim R 253. The number and nature of images possessed and distributed is also relevant to the [...]
[...] Prosecutions (Crown). C W PORRITT Barrister Footnotes [1] (2008) 187 A Crim R 435. [2] [2008] QCA 220. [3] (2008) 187 A Crim R 435 at 442 [32]. [4] [2008] QCA 220at [25]. [5] These offences are Classification [...]
[...] 73; (1997) 97 A Crim R 60; High Court, Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ, (1998) 194 CLR 656 at 662 [13], 662–663 [17]. [27] (1990) 19 NSWLR 112. [28] [2000] 1 Qd R 663 at 669 [25]. [...]
[...] (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 444 [12]. [36] (1999) 106 A Crim R 441 at 444–445 [13]. [37] [2008] QCA 290 at [42]. [38] [1999] QCA 311 at 12 [30]. [39] [1999] QCA 311 at 25 [17]. [40] [1999] QCA 311 [...]
[...] unreported); [2007] QCA 391. Williams v Queensland Community Corrections Board [2001] 1 Qd R 557. Williams v Western Australia [2006] WASC 165. CRIMINAL APPEAL A J Glynn SC for the applicant. M B Lehane [...]
[...] not contend that Carlton had provided material to others via the internet. Relying particularly on R v Carson ,[1] he submitted that a head sentence of between three and four years imprisonment should [...]
[...] head sentence of between 18 months to two years imprisonment was appropriate. This was supported by R v Salsone, ex parte Attorney-General .[2] Carlton was 23 years old at the time of his offending. He [...]
[...] the CEM in Carltons possession was in a lasting format. This was an aggravating feature: see R v Wharley .[14] Further, Salsone made admissions to police whilst Carlton declined to be interviewed [...]
[...] in respect of Truongs conclusion that s 9(3) and s 9(4) were retrospective. So, too, did R v S .[16] Mason and Saunders was concerned with pt 9A which was introduced into the Penalties and [...]
[...] authorised by the former law. This approach seemed inconsistent with Siganto v The Queen [26] and R v Maclay ,[27] however those cases were based upon statutes with clear transitional provisions requiring [...]
[...] 9. However, we would not at this stage be prepared to depart from the view taken by this court in R v Mason and Saunders
in relation to the non-application of Part 9A to offences committed before [...]
[...] wrongly decided. The Court considered that Truong , although contrary to this Courts decision in R v Mallard & White ,[31] should be followed. This was because in Mallard & White the point was effectively [...]
[...] Act introducing the present s 9(3) and s 9(4).[36] [31]As Chesterman JA points out, this Court in R v Flew recently followed Truong as to the effect of s 9(3) and s 9(4).[37] Flew did not consider [...]
[...] did not concern s 9(6A) and s 9(6B); and Mr Flew was not legally represented in his appeal. [32]In R v S , this Court re-affirmed the conclusion in Mason and Saunders and Breeze that pt 9A did not [...]
[...] Truong , followed Truong , although specifically only in respect of the 1997 amendments to s 9. In R v S the Court endorsed the criticisms of Truong made by this Court in Breeze . [35]This Courts [...]
[...] tension between the views of this Court expressed in Truong on the one hand, and in Breeze and R v S on the other, as to whether s 11(2) applied to amendments to s 9. That is probably why the 2003 [...]
[...] legislative intention to make s 9(6A) and s 9(6B) retrospective unless this was clearly stated: cf R v Pora .[49] It follows that the sentencing judge was wrong to rely on s 9(6A) and s 9(6B) if to do [...]
[...] last resort; and(ii)a sentence that allows the offender to stay in the community is preferable; and...(r)any other relevant circumstance.(3)However, the principles... in subsection 2(a) do not apply to the [...]
[...] prevailing at the time of sentence. [60] Truong has been regarded as authoritative, and followed. In R v Flew [2008] QCA 290 Fraser JA (with whom Atkinson J agreed) said: [42]Whilst there were intervening [...]
[...] under which a greater part of the sentences are to be served. However, this matter was determined in R v Mason and Saunders ... upon a broad consideration of what amounts to an increase of punishment. [...]
[...] inconsistent with what had been said in Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656 and went on ([2000] 1 Qd R 663 at 669): In these circumstances we would hold that s 9 of the... PSA , both before and after [...]
[...] Part 9A to offences committed before 1 July 1997. [74]The point concerning pt 9A arose again in R v S [1999] QCA 311. Pincus JA noted that: In Truong a remark was made implying doubt about [...]
[...] Mason should be followed and thought that it was: ... not affected by the decision
in R v Truong which held that s 9... of the... PSA ... both before and after the 1997 amendment, is purely [...]
[...] when the offences occurred. [76]The point also emerged in The Queen v Breeze (1999) 106 A Crim R 441. The Court (Pincus and Davies JJA, Demack J) rejected the doubt expressed in Truong about the [...]
[...] increase. [79]The Court of Criminal Appeal (Martin CJ, Kearney and Priestley JJ) said(1997) 97 A Crim R 60 at 66–67: The applicant submitted that... to abolish... remission... amounts to an increase [...]
[...] Appeal, in considering similar amendments to section 9... found that the provisions were procedural ( R v... Truong... ), and therefore could operate retrospectively. [92]Given this understanding it [...]
[...] 365require the sentencing judge to disregard the factors that are otherwise listed in paras (b) to (r) of s 9(2) of the Act. [107]In the context of the process that a sentencing judge must undertake in [...]
[...] 9(3) and s 9(4). [22] As defined under Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, pt 9A. [23] [1998] 2 Qd R 186 at 189; Davies and Pincus JJA, de Jersey CJ agreeing. [24] de Jersey CJ, Thomas JA and Mackenzie [...]
[...] [46] Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 211. [47] [1998] 2 Qd R 186 at 188–189. [48] (2005) 228 CLR 357 at 383–390 [65]-[84], McHugh J. [49] [2001] 2 NZLR 37. [50] Criminal Code 1899, s 11(2) [...]