R v Corrigan - [1993] QCA 417

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1993] QCA 417

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 184 of 1993

Brisbane

[R. v. Corrigan]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
ANTHONY WILLIAM CORRIGAN

(Applicant)

______________________________________________________________

THE CHIEF JUSTICE
DAVIES J.A.
LEE J.

_______________________________________________________________
Judgment delivered 20/10/1993
JOINT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND LEE J.;
DAVIES J.A. DISSENTING
______________________________________________________________

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED. APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART. IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE COUNTS OF MISAPPROPRIATION WITH A CIRCUMSTANCE OF AGGRAVATION, SET ASIDE THE SENTENCE OF SIX YEARS' IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED BELOW AND SUBSTITUTE A SENTENCE OF EIGHT YEARS' IMPRISONMENT, TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH THE SENTENCES OF FOUR YEARS' IMPRISONMENT IMPOSED BELOW ON THE REMAINING COUNTS, THOSE FOUR YEAR TERMS AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE AFTER SERVING FOUR YEARS OF THE SENTENCES TO REMAIN.

______________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Applicant sentenced to 4 years for misappropriation cumulative on sentence of 6 years for misappropriation with circumstance of aggravation with parole recommendation after 4 years - Offences part of single scheme - Whether sentences should have been concurrent - Whether early parole recommendation a reduction in sentence within s. 13 Penalties and Sentences Act - Whether guilty plea warranted reduction in head sentence

Corrective Services Act 1988, ss. 165, 166
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, ss. 4, 13,

157(2)

R v. Hantzisavvas [1981] Qd.R. 74

Counsel:	Mr Bullock for the Crown Mr T. Martin for the Applicant
Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the Crown Lang Hemming & Hall for the Applicant
Hearing Date(s):	15 July 1993
I	N THE COURT OF APPEAL
Q	UEENSLAND

C.A. No. 184 of 1993

B	risbane
Before	The Chief Justice Mr Justice Davies Mr Justice Lee
[	R. v. Corrigan]

T H E Q U E E N
v.
ANTHONY WILLIAM CORRIGAN

(Applicant)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND LEE J.

J	udgment delivered 20/10/93

The facts involved in this matter and the arguments advanced on the hearing of the appeal sufficiently appear in the reasons prepared by Davies J.A. We shall confine ourselves to stating our views on the effect of the relevant aspect of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and the conclusion which we consider should be adopted in this appeal.

We think that it is open to a sentencing court to reduce the sentence within the meaning of s. 13 by making an ameliorating accompanying order. A reduction may be carried out in ways other than by making a reduction in the number of years of imprisonment contemplated to some lesser number of years or a reduction in the amount of a fine to some lesser fine. It may be effected, for example, by imposing a fine rather than a term of imprisonment or, to take another example, it may be effected by adding an order for suspension of the whole or part of a term of imprisonment under Part 8 of the Penalties and…

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 Corrigan

Details

AGLC: R v Corrigan [1993] QCA 417
Case: [1993] QCA 417
Decision Date: 20/10/1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Corrigan, appealed against the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. Corrigan was found guilty of multiple counts of misappropriation, for which he was sentenced to four years in prison. Additionally, due to a circumstance of aggravation, he was sentenced to six years for another count of misappropriation. The sentences were to run concurrently, with a recommendation for parole to be considered after four years. Corrigan contended that the sentences should have been concurrent, and that the recommendation for early parole effectively reduced the sentence, which is prohibited under the Penalties and Sentences Act. Corrigan also argued that his guilty plea warranted a reduction in the head sentence.

The court examined whether the sentences should have been ordered to run concurrently and if the recommendation for early parole constituted a reduction in the sentence. It also considered whether the guilty plea warranted a reduction in the head sentence. The court noted that the offences were part of a single scheme and that the sentences should have been concurrent. It found that the recommendation for early parole did not amount to a reduction in the sentence. However, it determined that Corrigan's guilty plea did warrant a reduction in the head sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the sentencing court for reconsideration.

The court remitted the matter to the sentencing court with directions to re-sentence Corrigan, taking into account the findings that the sentences should have been concurrent and that the guilty plea warranted a reduction in the head sentence. The court did not address the issue of the early parole recommendation as it did not find it to be a reduction in the sentence. The specific details of the new sentence were to be determined by the sentencing court on remand.

Orders