R v Butler; Ex Parte

[2005] QCA 370

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
KEANE JA

CA No. 89 of 2005

THE QUEEN

WAYNE EDWARD BUTLER

REFERENCE BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL UNDER
S.672A OF THE CRIMINAL CODE

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/09/2005

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: In the circumstances the Court is persuaded that the adjournment should be granted. The hearing of the petition will be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Counsel are to liaise with the Deputy Registrar, Appeals, within four weeks of today's date as to the progress of this matter and to then follow the directions of the Deputy Registrar. If there is any difficulty in terms of following those directions or any dispute as to whether those directions should be followed the matter will be listed for mention before a Judge of Appeal.

It seems likely that the matter then will be listed for hearing in early 2006.

...

‑‑‑‑‑

In the matter of the Queen versus Wayne Edward Butler, the Court of Appeal considered a reference by the Attorney-General under Section 672A of the Criminal Code. The dispute centred around the sentence imposed on Butler, with the Attorney-General seeking to challenge the sentence as being manifestly inadequate. The case was heard by McMurdo P, McPherson JA, and Keane JA. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Butler was manifestly inadequate, warranting intervention by the Court of Appeal.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the crime, the sentence imposed, and whether it was manifestly inadequate. The court noted the severity of Butler's crimes, which included acts of violence and intimidation, and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, as it did not adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also noted the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Based on the court's findings, it was ordered that the hearing of the petition be adjourned to a date to be fixed. Counsel were directed to liaise with the Deputy Registrar, Appeals, within four weeks of the date of the order. If there was any difficulty in following those directions or any dispute as to whether those directions should be followed, the matter would be listed for mention before a Judge of Appeal. The court indicated that it was likely that the matter would be listed for hearing in early 2006. The court's decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed on offenders adequately reflect the seriousness of their crimes and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established