R v Donald
[2000] QCA 399
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)
- R v Donald[2000] QCA 399
- Add to List
R v Donald[2000] QCA 399
R v Donald[2000] QCA 399
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
CA No 179 of 2000
THE QUEEN
v.
STUART ANGUS DONALD Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 28/09/2000
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant for leave to appeal was sentenced to three years' imprisonment to be suspended after 18 months for three years. He committed two offences of house-breaking and one of entering a dwelling. There were other offences of stealing, false pretences and attempted house-breaking which attracted lower terms of imprisonment.
He had a very substantial prior criminal history covering a period of eight years involving many offences of dishonesty and offences like those for which he was sentenced on this occasion. When he was sentenced he was 26 years old and the relevant offending covered the preceding three years.
Because of his drug problem and apparently because of a defence request for some certainty about his release date, the sentencing Judge suspended the sentences rather than recommending eligibility for parole. While it is true that property of great value was not involved, the learned Judge was rightly influenced by the need to deter crime like this which is prevalent in the community.
The cases of Hadden, CA 198 of 1996, and Peat, CA 187 of 1991, suggest to me that the three year term was at least mid-range for house-breaking by an offender with this prior record and arguably low range. That being so, the Judge's not having contemplated release prior to the applicant's serving one half of the head sentence does not mean that that sentence should be regarded as manifestly excessive and not reflecting properly the significance of the pleas of guilty. I would refuse the application.
PINCUS JA: I agree.
THOMAS JA: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.