SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Bassi [2021] QCA 250
PARTIES:
R
v
BASSI, Karamveer Singh
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 206 of 2021
SC No 1632 of 2020DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 12 August 2021 (Dalton J)
DELIVERED ON:
Date of Orders: 12 October 2021
Date of Publication of Reasons: 23 November 2021DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
12 October 2021
JUDGES:
Sofronoff P and Davis and Williams JJ
ORDERS:
Date of Orders: 12 October 2021
1. The affidavit of Troy Anthony Smith is admitted into evidence.
2. Appeal allowed to the extent of:
a. setting aside the order that the appellant be released on parole on 22 August 2022.
b. ordering that, in relation to all sentences, the appellant be released on parole on 12 October 2021.
3. The appellant is ordered, pursuant to s 160G of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, to report to the Probation and Parole Office at Burleigh Heads between the hours of 9.00 am to 5.00 pm today or tomorrow and obtain a copy of the Court ordered parole order.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – JUDGE ACTING ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to offences against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 – where the sentencing judge failed to explain how the pleas of guilty had been taken into account on sentence – where the applicant had attempted to tender a report of a psychologist – where the report was relevant and admissible – where the judge refused the tender – whether the report was admissible
EVIDENCE – ADMISSIBILITY – OPINION EVIDENCE – EXPERT OPINION – QUALIFICATION OF WITNESS – where the applicant pleaded guilty to offences against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 – where he sought to tender the report of a psychologist – where the judge refused the tender – whether the opinions expressed in the report were admissible opinion evidence – whether the opinions were relevant – whether other material in the report was relevant – whether the tender ought to have been refused
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to charges against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 – where the applicant sought to tender a report of a psychologist – where the judge refused the tender – where the applicant sought to tender the report on appeal – whether the opinions expressed in the report were admissible – whether the other material in the report was relevant – whether the report ought to be admitted on appeal
CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – DRUG OFFENCES – SENTENCE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to offences against the Drugs Misuse Act 1986 – where the offences included possession of a substantial quantity of cocaine – where the applicant successfully appealed against sentence and was resentenced – where his plea of…
Continue reading R v Bassi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Bassi [2021] QCA 250
- Case
- [2021] QCA 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide if the sentencing judge had acted on the wrong principle by not explaining how the pleas of guilty were taken into account. Additionally, the court had to determine the admissibility of the psychologist's report, which was relevant and admissible, but had been refused by the judge. The court also needed to assess whether the opinions expressed in the report constituted admissible opinion evidence, and if the other material in the report was relevant. Finally, the court had to decide on the appropriateness of the parole release date.
The court found that the sentencing judge had indeed acted on the wrong principle by not adequately considering the plea of guilty, which demonstrated true remorse and showed the appellant had undertaken rehabilitation. The court held that the psychologist's report was relevant and admissible, and its exclusion was an error. The court concluded that the report explained the conditions leading to the appellant's offending and justified an earlier than usual date for his parole release. Consequently, the appeal was successful, and the appellant's sentence was altered to include an earlier parole release date.
The court allowed the appeal and set aside the parole release date, ordering that the appellant be released on parole on 12 October 2021. The appellant was also directed to report to the Probation and Parole Office at Burleigh Heads to obtain a copy of the Court ordered parole order.
Orders
Orders of the court
Date of Orders: 12 October 2021
1. The affidavit of Troy Anthony Smith is admitted into evidence.
2. Appeal allowed to the extent of:
a. setting aside the order that the appellant be released on parole on 22 August 2022.
b. ordering that, in relation to all sentences, the appellant be released on parole on 12 October 2021.
3. The appellant is ordered, pursuant to s 160G of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, to report to the Probation and Parole Office at Burleigh Heads between the hours of 9.00 am to 5.00 pm today or tomorrow and obtain a copy of the Court ordered parole order.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.