R v Russell
[2004] QCA 315
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 Russell[2004] QCA 315
- Add to List
R v Russell[2004] QCA 315
R v Russell[2004] QCA 315
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 31 August 2004 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 31 August 2004 |
JUDGES: | McPherson JA, Jerrard JA and Holmes J |
ORDER: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to numerous offences including one count of burglary, seven counts of unlawfully using a motor vehicle and four counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the burglary and lesser sentences of imprisonment for the other offences – where a recommendation was made for eligibility for post-prison community based release after 18 months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given that the applicant had little chance of getting parole |
COUNSEL: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf |
HOLMES J: I concur with the learned sentencing Judge in thinking that it would not be a good thing for the applicant to be released straight into the community without supervision after the length of this sentence, and it is important that the parole recommendation was made by his Honour with the knowledge of the applicant's criminal history in New South Wales and Queensland. No doubt the Parole Board will have regard to what was said in The Queen v. Maxfield at (2002) 1 Queensland Reports 417 in the majority judgment as to how parole recommendations ought to be treated. Those are the only comments I wish to make.
McPHERSON JA: Well, I agree with what's been said.
JERRARD JA: I'd agree with those too. What that means is that the Parole Board should take some notice of what the Judge recommended.
...
McPHERSON JA: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.