THE PRESIDENT: This appeal was heard by Judges of Appeal McPherson and Williams and Justice Byrne. The order is the application for leave to appeal is granted, the appeal is allowed and the sentence set aside.
The applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for nine years with a declaration that the presentence custody period of 430 days be regarded as time served under that sentence. I publish the separate reasons for Judgment of each member of the Court, Judges of Appeal McPherson and Williams concurring as to the orders made, Justice Byrne dissenting.
-----
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 DeSalvo
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63
Case
[2002] QCA 63
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of R v DeSalvo, the applicant, Derek Albert DeSalvo, was appealing against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appeal was heard by McPherson JA, Williams JA and Byrne JCA. DeSalvo was convicted of serious criminal offences and the issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The legal issues for the Court of Appeal to determine were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether it was appropriate to allow the appeal. The Court of Appeal had to consider whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was within the range of appropriate sentences for the crimes committed. The Court also had to consider whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed.
The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. The Court of Appeal held that the sentence was not within the range of appropriate sentences for the crimes committed. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal sentenced DeSalvo to imprisonment for nine years with a declaration that the presentence custody period of 430 days be regarded as time served under that sentence.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. The Court of Appeal sentenced DeSalvo to imprisonment for nine years with a declaration that the presentence custody period of 430 days be regarded as time served under that sentence.