R v Booth - [1995] QCA 478

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 478
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 189 of 1995.

Brisbane

[A-G v. Booth]

T H E Q U E E N

STEPHEN EDWARD BOOTH

Respondent

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

Appellant

_________________________________________________________________

Pincus JA
McPherson JA
Demack J

Judgment delivered 27/10/1995

Joint reasons for judgment of Pincus JA and Demack J; separate concurring reasons
for judgment of McPherson JA.
_________________________________________________________________

1.         THE SENTENCES APPEALED AGAINST ARE REDUCED FROM 8 YEARS TO 7 YEARS.
2.         ALL THE SENTENCES IMPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURT ON 13 APRIL 1995 ARE TO BE SERVED CUMULATIVELY UPON THOSE IMPOSED IN 1991 AND 1992 BUT CONCURRENTLY WITH EACH OTHER; AND
3.         IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RESPONDENT BE CONSIDERED FOR PAROLE AFTER 30 JUNE 2000.

_________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - offences committed while on parole - whether sentences too light - whether sentences should be made cumulative - effect of parole on calculation of sentence.
Ss. 183, 184, 187, 190 Corrective Services Act 1988
Counsel:	Mr M Byrne QC for the appellant. Mr A Kimmins for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant.

Jacki Payne & Assoc. for the respondent.

Hearing date:

23 June 1995.

JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - PINCUS JA AND DEMACK J

Judgment delivered 27/10/1995

This is an Attorney-General’s appeal against sentence. The respondent was convicted in April of a number of offences of which some details are given below. Those which attracted the highest sentence were two offences of armed robbery in company, for each of which a concurrent sentence of 8 years was imposed. The Attorney argues that the head sentences of 8 years were rather too light, but more importantly, says that the sentences should have been cumulative upon sentences then being served. As will appear, the effect, under the relevant statute, of the sentences imposed, requires some analysis.

The respondent was born on 10 August 1969. His first significant offence was committed in 1987 when he was nearly 18. He was then convicted of breaking and entering with intent and sentenced to community service plus 12 months probation. A little later he was convicted of stealing, that offence apparently having been committed on the same date as the breaking and entering; he was again sentenced to 12 months probation. In April 1988, at the age of 18, he was convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, attempted unlawful use and false pretences, which attracted a total sentence of 4 months imprisonment. A few months later he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for another breaking and entering committed in March 1988. In 1989 he was convicted of dangerous driving and unlawful use of a motor vehicle; this attracted a 3 month prison sentence and 18 months probation. In the same year he was convicted of charges of breaking, entering and stealing and sentenced to 6 months imprisonment and 2 years probation. In February 1991 he was sentenced to 6 years imprisonment with a recommendation of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Booth

Details

AGLC: R v Booth [1995] QCA 478
Case: [1995] QCA 478
Decision Date: 27/10/1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Booth involved the appellant who had previously been convicted for multiple offences and was on parole at the time of committing further crimes. The respondent, the Crown, sought to challenge the leniency of the sentences imposed on the appellant for these new offences. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the sentences were too light and if they should be made cumulative given the appellant's history of reoffending while on parole. Additionally, the court was tasked with considering the impact of parole on the calculation of the appellant's overall sentence.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed on the appellant for the new offences were adequately reflective of the seriousness of the crimes, given the appellant's prior criminal history and the fact that the offences were committed while on parole. Furthermore, the court had to decide whether these sentences should be cumulative with any existing sentences and how the parole status should influence the sentencing process. The court also needed to assess how the parole conditions affected the calculation and imposition of the sentences.

The court found that the sentences for the new offences were indeed too lenient, failing to adequately account for the appellant's history of reoffending and the fact that the crimes were committed while on parole. The court held that the sentences should be cumulative with any existing sentences to ensure that the appellant's overall punishment was commensurate with the gravity of his actions. The parole conditions were considered in the sentencing process, with the court emphasising that parole should not diminish the severity of the punishment for new offences. Ultimately, the court determined that the appellant's sentences should be increased to reflect the true nature of his criminal conduct.

The court ordered that the sentences for the new offences be increased and made cumulative with any existing sentences. This decision underscores the importance of considering the full extent of an offender's criminal history, particularly when offences are committed while on parole, in determining appropriate sentencing.

Orders