The Queen v Smith
[1999] QCA 250
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- The Queen v Smith[1999] QCA 250
- Add to List
The Queen v Smith[1999] QCA 250
The Queen v Smith[1999] QCA 250
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 153 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v. Smith ]
THE QUEEN
v.
ALLEN CHARLES SMITH
(Applicant) Appellant
McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA
Judgment delivered 7 July 1999
Further Order delivered 17 August 1999
Further Order of the Court
IT IS ORDERED THAT THE ORDER MADE ON THIS APPLICATION ON 7 JULY 1999 DOES NOT AFFECT THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE LEARNED SENTENCING JUDGE WITH RESPECT TO 65 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY WHICH DECLARATION STILL SUBSISTS
| CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - OTHER MATTERS - application for leave to appeal against sentence disposed of on earlier date - status of declaration made by primary judge with respect to pre-sentence custody - Department of Corrective Services bound by such declarations whether or not it agrees with them |
| Counsel: | Mr M Shanahan for the applicant Mr P Rutledge for the respondent |
| Solicitors: | Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
| Hearing Date: | 7 July 1999 |
REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 7 July 1999
Further Order delivered 17 August 1999
- This application for leave to appeal was disposed of on 7 July 1999. The registrar has since received from the Woodford Correctional Centre a communication suggesting that there is doubt about the status of a declaration made by the primary judge with respect to pre‑sentence custody; that declaration is not mentioned in the order which was made in this Court. However, it is plain that the intention was that the declaration should stand.
- The communication also suggests that the declaration was wrongly made by the sentencing judge. However, there was no appeal by the Attorney-General, nor did counsel for the respondent before us suggest that the declaration was wrongly made. Of course the Department is bound by such declarations whether or not it agrees with them.
- To clarify the position, we make the following order:
It is ordered that the order made on this application on 7 July 1999 does not affect the declaration made by the learned sentencing judge with respect to 65 days pre-sentence custody which declaration still subsists.