R v Dobbs - [2015] QDC 64

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dobbs [2015] QDC 64

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

GEOFFREY ROBERT DOBBS
(Respondent)

FILE NO:

No. 3475 of 2000 and 3336A of 2002

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application to review indefinite sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 March, 2015

DELIVERED AT:

District Court, Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 November 2014

JUDGE:

Chief Judge O’Brien

ORDER:

1. The indefinite sentences imposed in the District Court of Brisbane on 24 July 2003 are discharged

2. In respect of the offences which were subject to indefinite sentences, the respondent is sentenced to periods of 15 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences he is presently undergoing

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – indefinite sentence – periodic review of indefinite sentence – whether the offender is still a serious danger to the community

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s 200, s 227.

Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (Qld).

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s.163, s 169, s 170, s.171, s 173.

Attorney-General v Francis [2005] QSC 381

Buckley v R (2006) ALJR 605

R v Garland [2014] QCA 3

COUNSEL:

Ms DA Holliday for the applicant
Mr RA East for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant

Legal Aid Office for the respondent

This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s.171 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (“the Act”) for the review of an indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent, Geoffrey Robert Dobbs, in the District Court at Brisbane on 24 July, 2003. On that occasion, the respondent was sentenced in relation to a total of 103 offences involving the sexual mistreatment of children. The sentences imposed ranged from 5 years imprisonment through to life imprisonment for offences of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child. In respect of two offences of aggravated unlawful carnal knowledge, indefinite sentences were imposed on the respondent pursuant to s.163(1) of the Act. In compliance with s.163(2), a term of 15 years imprisonment (the nominal sentence) was stated as the term the Court would have imposed had it not imposed the indefinite sentence.

Pursuant to s.171(1)(a)(i) of the Act the sentencing court is required to review the indefinite sentence within six months of the offender having served 50% of the nominal sentence. Thereafter, in accordance with s.171(1)(b) of the Act, the court is required to review the sentence at intervals of not more than two years from when the last review was made.

This in fact is the fourth review of the respondent’s indefinite sentences, with previous reviews having been conducted in December 2008, April 2011 and April 2013. On each of those occasions, the indefinite sentence was maintained.

Section 173 of the Act provides that unless it is satisfied that the offender is still a serious danger to the community when the review is made, the court must order that the…

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 Dobbs

Details

AGLC: R v Dobbs [2015] QDC 64
Case: [2015] QDC 64
Decision Date: 6 March, 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dobbs involved the respondent, who had been sentenced to an indefinite sentence by the District Court of Brisbane on 24 July 2003. The respondent had already been serving a life sentence for certain offences, but was additionally sentenced for other crimes. The respondent appealed the indefinite sentence, arguing that it was unjust and that he no longer posed a serious danger to the community. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the indefinite sentence was appropriate given the respondent's current circumstances.

The central issue before the Court was whether the indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent was still justified, given that he had already been serving a life sentence for other offences and was no longer considered to be a serious danger to the community. The Court had to consider the principles of sentencing and the purpose of an indefinite sentence, as well as the evidence presented regarding the respondent's current risk level. The Court also had to determine what alternative sentence would be appropriate in light of the respondent's current circumstances.

In its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent was no longer justified. The Court noted that the respondent had already been serving a life sentence for other offences, and that there was no evidence to suggest that he still posed a serious danger to the community. The Court held that an indefinite sentence was only appropriate in cases where the offender continued to pose a significant risk to the community, and that the respondent no longer met this criterion. The Court therefore discharged the indefinite sentences imposed on the respondent and imposed alternative sentences of 15 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences he was presently undergoing.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The indefinite sentences imposed in the District Court of Brisbane on 24 July 2003 are discharged

2. In respect of the offences which were subject to indefinite sentences, the respondent is sentenced to periods of 15 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences he is presently undergoing

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.

CITATION:	R v Dobbs [2015] QDC 64
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v GEOFFREY ROBERT DOBBS (Respondent)
FILE NO:	No. 3475 of 2000 and 3336A of 2002
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application to review indefinite sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	6 March, 2015
DELIVERED AT:	District Court, Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 November 2014
JUDGE:	Chief Judge O’Brien
ORDER:	1. The indefinite sentences imposed in the District Court of Brisbane on 24 July 2003 are discharged 2. In respect of the offences which were subject to indefinite sentences, the respondent is sentenced to periods of 15 years imprisonment to be served concurrently with each other and concurrently with the life sentences he is presently undergoing
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – indefinite sentence – periodic review of indefinite sentence – whether the offender is still a serious danger to the community Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) s 200, s 227. Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offences) Act 2003 (Qld). Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s.163, s 169, s 170, s.171, s 173. Attorney-General v Francis [2005] QSC 381 Buckley v R (2006) ALJR 605 R v Garland [2014] QCA 3
COUNSEL:	Ms DA Holliday for the applicant Mr RA East for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant Legal Aid Office for the respondent