R v Elliott

Case [2000] QCA 267


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Elliott [2000] QCA 267
PARTIES: R
v
ELLIOTT, Christopher John
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No  38 of 2000
DC No 815 of 1999
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON: 11 July 2000
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 4 July 2000
JUDGES:

McPherson, Davies and Thomas JJA

Joint reasons for judgment of Davies and Thomas JJA; separate reasons of McPherson JA, concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.   Leave to appeal against sentence granted;

2.   Appeal allowed;

3.   Sentence below set aside and replaced with a sentence of three years imprisonment with a recommendation for consideration of parole after one year; and

4.   Declare that the applicant has already served 133 days of pre-sentence custody solely in respect of these offences namely from 4 March 1999 to 28 April 1999, from 28 October 1999 until 28 January 2000.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS - whether effective sentence of six years imprisonment with a recommendation for consideration of parole after 18 months manifestly excessive - where offences not involve actual physical harm – whether sentence failed to give sufficient regard to applicant’s mental disorder

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 92, s 161

Channon v R (1978) 20 ALR 1, considered
R v Amituanai (1995) 78 A Crim R 588, considered
R v Brown [1996] QCA 251; CA No 155 of 1996, 26 July 1996, considered
R v Hakkila [1994] QCA 95; CA No 14 of 1994, 30 March 1994, considered
R v Hughes [1999] 1 Qd R 389, considered
R v Ishibashi [1998] QCA 342; CA No 88 of 1998, 29 May 1998, considered
R v Norman [1999] QCA 77, CA No 378 of 1998, 18 March 1999, considered
R v Wishart  and Jenkins [1994] 2 Qd R 421, considered

COUNSEL: P A  Leask for the applicant
T A C Winn for the respondent
SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. McPHERSON JA:  I agree with the joint reasons of Davies and Thomas JJA for allowing this appeal, and with the orders proposed.

  1. DAVIES AND THOMAS JJA:  The applicant pleaded guilty to six offences arising out of an incident on 4 March 1999.  The offences were wilful damage, common assault, going armed so as to cause fear and three malicious acts with intent to resist lawful arrest.  On the first three counts he was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and on the remaining three counts to six years imprisonment with a recommendation for consideration of parole after 18 months.  It was declared that he had served 133 days in pre-sentence custody.

  1. The circumstances of the offences were that the applicant, who was a regulated patient at the Gold Coast Hospital, absconded from the hospital approximately one…

Continue reading R v Elliott

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Elliott [2000] QCA 267
Case
[2000] QCA 267
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Elliott involves an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant following his conviction for multiple offences. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and did not sufficiently consider his mental disorder. The matter was heard in the higher court which has jurisdiction to hear appeals against sentences imposed by lower courts.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the effective sentence of six years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 18 months was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence failed to give sufficient regard to the applicant's mental disorder. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing, the nature of the offences, and the applicant's personal circumstances, including his mental health.

The court granted leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal. The court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly given that the offences did not involve actual physical harm. The court also found that the sentence failed to give sufficient regard to the applicant's mental disorder. The court replaced the sentence with a sentence of three years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after one year. The court also declared that the applicant had already served 133 days of pre-sentence custody solely in respect of these offences.

In summary, the court allowed the appeal against sentence, set aside the original sentence and replaced it with a lesser sentence, and declared the length of pre-sentence custody served by the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted;

2. Appeal allowed;

3. Sentence below set aside and replaced with a sentence of three years imprisonment with a recommendation for consideration of parole after one year; and

4. Declare that the applicant has already served 133 days of pre-sentence custody solely in respect of these offences namely from 4 March 1999 to 28 April 1999, from 28 October 1999 until 28 January 2000.

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.