SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Dullroy & Yates; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2005] QCA 219
PARTIES:
R
v
DULLROY, Christopher Thomas
(respondent)
YATES, Dennis Francis
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 111 of 2005
CA No 112 of 2005
DC No 102 of 2005DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Appeal against Sentence by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:
24 June 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
9 June 2005
JUDGES:
de Jersey CJ, White and McMurdo JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, White and McMurdo JJ concurring as to the orders made, de Jersey CJ dissentingORDERS:
1. In CA No 111 of 2005: Appeal dismissed
2. In CA No 112 of 2005: Appeal dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where respondents pleaded guilty, among other things, to robbery in company while armed with a gun and a knife – where respondents were imprisoned for four years, wholly suspended, and ordered to make restitution and perform community service – where respondents were comparatively young – where neither respondent had any prior criminal history – where respondents had completed some of the community service ordered against them – where respondents’ rehabilitation was described as “excellent and already well under way” – where robbery was meticulously planned – where respondents stole a gun for use in the robbery – where robbery was executed at night – where respondents wore balaclavas to conceal their identity – where robbery had an adverse impact on complainants – where respondents committed offences after the robbery – whether the full suspension of imprisonment rendered the sentence manifestly inadequate
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PURPOSE OF SENTENCE – DETERRENCE – where violent crime is carried out at night against shop attendants who are vulnerable and in need of protection – whether deterrence, denunciation and punishment are factors which should strongly inform sentencing in cases like this – whether sentencing judge allowed issues of mitigation and rehabilitation to distract from these considerations
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PROTECTION OF COMMUNITY AND PREVENTATIVE DETENTION – where offenders were aged 16-17 and 22 at time of offences and 18 and 24 at time of sentencing – where sentencing Judge determined there was some real prospect of rehabilitation if not sent to jail – where amendment to s 9(4) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) removed principles that sentence of imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort and sentence that allows offender to stay in community is preferable in relation to offences of violence –…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Dullroy and Yates; ex parte and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] QCA 219
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the nature and circumstances of the crime, noting the meticulous planning and execution of the robbery, the use of weapons, and the adverse impact on the victims. The court also considered the respondents' rehabilitation prospects and the fact that they had already completed some of the community service ordered. However, the court held that the sentencing judge had allowed considerations of mitigation and rehabilitation to overshadow the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the wholly suspended imprisonment was insufficient to adequately address the seriousness of the crime and the need to protect the community. The court also noted that the amendment to s 9(4) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) shifted the focus of sentencing towards the protection of the community from the risk of further offending.
Given the severity of the crime and the need for a sentence that adequately reflects its seriousness, the court allowed the appeal. The respondents' four-year wholly suspended imprisonment term was deemed manifestly inadequate. The court ordered that the respondents be sentenced to twelve months actual imprisonment. The court balanced the respondents' young age and prospects for rehabilitation against the need for deterrence and protection of the community.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeals in both cases, CA No 111 of 2005 and CA No 112 of 2005, and to impose a sentence of twelve months actual imprisonment on the respondents. The court found that the original wholly suspended sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need to protect the community.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. In CA No 111 of 2005: Appeal dismissed
2. In CA No 112 of 2005: Appeal dismissed
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.