R v Alt
Case
•
[2013] QCA 343
•15 November 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Alt [2013] QCA 343
[2013] QCA 343
15 November 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Alt, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the learned sentencing judge had erred in several respects. The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty to 14 counts of dishonesty and property-related offences committed over a three-year period and was sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at 30 per cent. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had erred in considering the time elapsed since the commission of the offences and the applicant's rehabilitation, which was partly due to a delay of nine years caused by the applicant himself. The applicant also contended that the sentencing judge had misapplied sections 9, 13, and 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), failed to consider the applicant's willingness to make full restitution or pay compensation, did not adequately explain the cumulative sentences, and that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.
The court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant and the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant legislation. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the factors relevant to sentencing and had not erred in her application of the law. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly taken into account the applicant's rehabilitation and the delay in sentencing, and that there was no error in the application of sections 9, 13, and 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court also found that the sentencing judge had adequately explained the cumulative sentences and that there was no error in the sentencing decision. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no misapplication of principle.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The confidential reasons for judgment of Morrison JA were not to be further published, and a copy of the reasons were to be placed in a sealed envelope and opened only by order of the Court or upon an application under section 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
The court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant and the principles of sentencing outlined in the relevant legislation. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the factors relevant to sentencing and had not erred in her application of the law. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly taken into account the applicant's rehabilitation and the delay in sentencing, and that there was no error in the application of sections 9, 13, and 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The court also found that the sentencing judge had adequately explained the cumulative sentences and that there was no error in the sentencing decision. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no misapplication of principle.
The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The confidential reasons for judgment of Morrison JA were not to be further published, and a copy of the reasons were to be placed in a sealed envelope and opened only by order of the Court or upon an application under section 188(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Mistaken Identity
-
Cumulative Sentences
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Alt [2013] QCA 343
Most Recent Citation
R v Field [2017] QCA 188
Cases Citing This Decision
12
R v Field
[2017] QCA 188
R v Field
[2017] QCA 188
R v Saggers
[2016] QCA 344
Cases Cited
31
Statutory Material Cited
2
R v Phillips
[2008] QCA 284
R v L; ex parte Attorney-General
[1995] QCA 444
R v Sparks; R v D Stracey; R v P Stracey
[2010] NSWSC 1512