R v Armitage, Armitage and Dean

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Armitage, Armitage and Dean [2020] QSC 41

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

STEPHEN JOHN ARMITAGE
(First Defendant)

MATTHEW LESLIE ARMITAGE

(Second Defendant)

WILLIAM FRANCIS DEAN

(Third Defendant)

FILE NO/S:

Indictment No 973 of 2016

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Delivered Ex Tempore on 19 February 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 and 19 February 2020

JUDGE:

Jackson J

ORDER:

The order of the Court is that:

Stephen John Armitage

1.       Order that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of 10 years;

2. Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), it is declared that 1237 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 4 October 2014 and 21 February 2018 be deemed time already served under the sentence;

3. Declare that the offence is a serious violent offence under s 161A(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act.

Matthew Leslie Armitage

1.   Order that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of 8 years;

2. Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act, it is declared that 1237 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 4 October 2014 and 21 February 2018 be deemed time already served under the sentence;

3. Declare that the offence is a serious violent offence under s 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act.

William Francis Dean

1.Order that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of 10 years;

2.Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act, it is declared that 370 days spent in pre-sentence custody between 4 October 2014 and 9 October 2015 be deemed time already served under the sentence;

3.Declare that the offence is a serious violent offence under s 161A(a) of the Penalties and Sentences Act.

CATCHWORDS:      CRIMINAL LAW– PROCEDURE– JURISDICTION–

SUPREME COURTS– GENERALLY– where the sentence proceeding arose out of the convictions substituted by the Court of Appeal for the original convictions of murder– where the orders for remittal did not identify the basis of the jurisdiction to be exercised by the trial division– whether the power to be exercised is that under section 668F(2) of the Criminal Code or whether the remitter re-engages the trial division’s original jurisdiction– where the Court found that in either case section 154 of the Penalties and Sentences Act is engaged.

CRIMINAL LAW– SENTENCE– SENTENCING PROCEDURE– SENTENCING FOLLOWING RETRIAL

OR REMITTAL–where the defendants were to be sentenced each on one count of manslaughter– where the findings of fact from the Court of Appeal decisions on which the substituted convictions were based were considered as binding– where apart from the antecedents, age and character and personal circumstances of each defendant there were no mitigating or reducing factors relevant– whether the notional sentences should be reduced to reflect the overall offending and the period of the declaration of pre-sentence custody made in respect of the current offence.

CRIMINAL LAW– SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS– ORDERS AND DECLARATIONS RELATING TO SERIOUS OR VIOLENT…