Legal Research
Cases
R v Eveleigh

R v Eveleigh

Case [2002] QCA 219 21 June 2002

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219

PARTIES:

R
v
EVELEIGH, Allan John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 356 of 2001
DC No 3207 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 June 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 April 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fryberg and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; Fryberg and Mullins JJ concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting in part.

ORDERS:

1. Subject to paragraph (2), application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

2. Leave granted for both parties to make further submissions in writing within seven days regarding whether a declaration as to the operation of s 135(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2000 should be made

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Totality – Sentences for several offences – Where serious violent offence declaration made under s 161B(3) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 – Whether declaration made sentence manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Non-parole period or minimum term – Queensland – Where applicant serving four terms of imprisonment – Where one offence declared to be a serious violent offence – Where trial judge made no recommendation for post-prison community based release – Interpretation of s 135(2) Corrective Services Act 2000

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 134, s 135(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 9, s 13, s 157, s 161B

R v Bird and Schipper [2000] QCA 94, considered
R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, applied
R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, considered
R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 110, considered
R v Bui [2002] QCA 151, considered
R v Collins [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered
R v Crossley (1999) A Crim R 80, considered
R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered
R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered
R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered
R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered
R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered
R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered
R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered
R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered
R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered
R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered
R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered
R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered
R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered
R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527, applied
R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, considered
R v Taylor and Napatali; ex parte Attorney-General (1999) 106 A Crim R 578, considered
R v Vanderwerff [1999] QCA 169, considered

COUNSEL:

J R Hunter for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions…

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 Eveleigh

Details

AGLC: R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219
Case: [2002] QCA 219
Decision Date: 21 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Eveleigh, the court was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive. The applicant was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced to imprisonment, with one of the offences declared a serious violent offence under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The applicant challenged the severity of the sentence, particularly in light of the declaration of the serious violent offence, and sought leave to appeal against the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offence, the declaration of the offence as a serious violent offence, and the absence of a recommendation for post-prison community-based release by the trial judge. The court was also required to consider the appropriate interpretation of section 135(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2000 in the context of the applicant’s multiple terms of imprisonment.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly focusing on the totality principle and the need for a sentence to reflect the gravity of the offence. The court noted that the trial judge had taken into account the serious nature of the offence and the need for punishment and deterrence. However, the court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature of the offences and the need to protect the community. The court further deliberated on the interpretation of section 135(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2000, which governs the imposition of multiple sentences, and concluded that the trial judge's approach was consistent with the statutory provisions. The court decided that leave to appeal against the sentence should be dismissed but allowed both parties to make further written submissions regarding the operation of section 135(2).

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Subject to paragraph (2), application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

2. Leave granted for both parties to make further submissions in writing within seven days regarding whether a declaration as to the operation of s 135(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2000 should be made

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219

Most Recent Citation

R v Bidmade [2003] QCA 422

Cases citing this decision · 16 of 16 shown

R v Smith
[2022] QCA 89 Para 40

…the sentence as a whole must be a just one, not solely in relation to the head sentence.[23] [23]See R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398 at 431 [111]; [2002] QCA 219.…
R v Free; Ex parte
[2020] QCA 58

…v DeSalvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63, cited R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219, cited R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, cited R v Muirhead; R v Muirhead; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] QCA 244, followed R v O’Sullivan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld); R v L…
Doig v Commissioner of Police
[2016] QDC 320 Para 1

…he sentencing tools[8] available to a court. [7]Burton, Crofts, Tarrant. Thomson Reuters 2011 [8]To borrow the term used by Fryberg J in R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219 at [111].…
R v Pryce
[2016] QCA 43

…95] HCA 41, cited R v Amato [2013] QCA 158, distinguished R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219, considered R v Honeysett; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland [2010] QCA 212, distinguished R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Lyon [2006] QCA 146, considered R v Marks; ex parte Attorney-General of…
R v Thomason; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2011] QCA 9

…(2003) 137 A Crim R 489; [2003] QCA 18, followed R v Dietz [2009] QCA 392, cited R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219, considered R v Henriott [2004] QCA 346, considered R v Honeysett; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2010] QCA 212, cited R v Johnstone [2004] QCA 12, cited R v Lacey; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2009) 197 A…
R v Richardson
[2010] QCA 216 Para 1

…998] QCA 280; R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183; [1999] QCA 206; R v DeSalvo (2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 63; R v Everleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219; R v Bidmade [2003] QCA 422; R v A [2003] QCA 538; R v Orchard [2005] QCA 141; R v Cowie [2005] 2 Qd R 533; [2005] QCA 223; R v BAW [2005] QCA 334; R v B…
R v ZA; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2009] QCA 249

…) – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s161B(3) R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219, considered R v Herford (2001) 119 A Crim R 546; [2001] QCA 177, considered R v McDougall & Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, followed R v P [2000] QCA 271, con…
R v TR & FV; ex parte A-G (Qld)
[2008] QCA 221 Para 1

…he discretion to do so. The criteria discussed in R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365 and R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219 lead to the conclusion that this is not a case in which a serious violent offence declaration should be made.…
R v McDougall and Collas
[2006] QCA 365 Para 1

…September 1998. [7][1999] QCA 206; CA No 4 of 1999, 8 June 1999. [8](2002) 127 A Crim R 229; [2002] QCA 063; CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March 2002. [9][2002] QCA 219; CA No 356 of 2001, 21 June 2002. [10](2003) 39 MVR 470; CA No 230 of 2003, 26 September 2003. [11]CA No 283 of 2003, 2 December 2003. [12]CA No 11 of 20…
R v Mitchell
[2006] QCA 240 Para 1

…nd is thus simply an additional sentencing tool that is available as part of the overall sentencing process: see also R v Eveleigh [2003] 1 Qd R 398; [2002] QCA 219. In considering whether to exercise the discretion contained in s 161B(3), a sentencing judge is required to determine a sentence which is “just in a…
Gilchrist v Queensland Community Corrections Board
[2006] QSC 144 Para 1

…ffence, and before serving any of the subsequent cumulative term. [6]Section 166 of the Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld) [7][2002] QCA 219; [2003] 1 Qd R 398…
R v Lewis
[2006] QCA 121

…tegrated sentencing process R v Cowie [2005] QCA 223; CA No 42 of 2005, 24 June 2005, followed R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219; [2003] 1 Qd R 398, followed R v Lund [2000] QCA 85; CA No 386 of 1999, 17 March 2000, considered COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf T A Fuller for the respondent SOLICITORS: T…
R v BAX
[2005] QCA 365 Para 1

…In R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219 Fryberg J undertook an extensive analysis of decisions in this Court which had considered Part 9A of the Act, and the proper approach to sentencing, both in circumstances in which serious violent offence declarations were mandatory by reason of the sentence imposed being 10 years or…
R v BAW
[2005] QCA 334 Para 1

…The analysis of earlier decisions undertaken by Fryberg J in R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219 resulted in that learned judge summarising the position[9] resulting from earlier decisions of this Court on Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 as including the principle that where the making of a declaration is…
R v Cowie
[2005] QCA 223

…00] 2 Qd R 183, considered R v Booth [1999] QCA 100; [2001] 1 Qd R 393, cited R v Crossley [1999] QCA 223; (1999) 106 A Crim R 80, cited R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219; [2003] 1 Qd R 398, considered R v Herford [2001] QCA 177; (2001) 119 A Crim R 546, applied R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172; [2002] 1 Qd R 527, app…
R v Bidmade
[2003] QCA 422 Para 1

…In Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219, Fryberg J analysed the decisions of this Court in relation to declarations of serious violent offences, and concluded that there were two views discernible. The first was that the process was one of determining the appropriate sentence and then exercising the discretion. In the exercis…

View all 16 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 30 of 30 shown

R v Burton
[2020] NSWDC 246 Para 1

…d. It is unnecessary to consider these question is because no one has suggested that by not exercising it, the sentencing judge was in error. [116]In R v Burton (1995) 83 A Crim R 453, McPherson JA thought that there was no such power; I thought that there was; and Thomas J (as he then was) expressly reserved his op…
R v Duong, Nguyen, Bui and Quoc
[2002] QCA 151

…183, applied R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, considered R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 110, considered R v Bui [2002] QCA 151, considered R v Collins [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered R v Crossley (1999) A Crim R 80, considered R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered R v…
R v Moore; ex parte
[2002] QCA 116

…nsidered R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527, applied R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, c…
R v DeSalvo
[2002] QCA 63 Para 1

…ration, the cumulative sentence is manifestly excessive. [1] Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Part 9A. [2][2000] 2 Qd R 183, [28]-[35]. [3][2002] QCA 63, CA No 284 of 2001, 15 March 2002.…
R v Keating
[2002] QCA 19

…Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 1…
R v Irving
[2001] QCA 472 Para 1

…iting on whether such a declaration should be made and if so, on its terms, within seven days from the date of this judgment. [124]Compare R v Irving [2001] QCA 472.…
R v Herford
[2001] QCA 177

…Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Lund [200…
R v Shillingsworth
[2001] QCA 172

…e court should disregard altogether the consequences of the various provisions inserted into the legislation on 1 July 1997 (see R v Shillingsworth [2001] QCA 172).”[77]…
R v Maxfield
[2000] QCA 320 Para 1

…the law as enacted, not as the judges think the legislators would have enacted it if only they had thought of doing so. [117] R v Maxfield [2000] QCA 320. [118] Smith v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134 at p 139; Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 at p 164.…
R v B; ex parte A-G
[2000] QCA 110

…onsidered R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, applied R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, considered R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 110, considered R v Bui [2002] QCA 151, considered R v Collins [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered R v Crossley (1999) A Crim R 80, considered R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered R v DeS…
R v Bird and Schipper
[2000] QCA 94

…t 2000 (Qld), s 134, s 135(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 9, s 13, s 157, s 161B R v Bird and Schipper [2000] QCA 94, considered R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, applied R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, considered R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 110, considered R v Bui [2002] QCA 151, co…
R v Lund
[2000] QCA 85

…v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered R v Pa…
R v Jones
[2000] QCA 84

…Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore;…
R v Palmer
[2000] QCA 15

…re; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527, applied R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, considered R v Taylor and Napatali; ex parte Attorney-General (1999) 106 A Crim R 578, consi…
R v Newcombe and Middleton
[1999] QCA 408

…ney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527, applied R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, considered R v Taylor and Napatali; ex parte Attorney-G…
R v Hardie
[1999] QCA 352

…ley (1999) A Crim R 80, considered R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [19…
R v McCartney
[1999] QCA 238

…eating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered R v Shilli…
R v Bojovic
[1999] QCA 206

…“Their Honours refer to the decision in R v Bojovic [1999] QCA 206 as showing that the exercise of the sentencing discretion is ‘an integrated process rather than a series of discrete steps’. That is the effect of that decision in relation to sentencing in a matter in which a discretion arose under s 161B(3) of t…
R v Vanderwerff
[1999] QCA 169

…QCA 15, considered R v Taylor and Napatali; ex parte Attorney-General (1999) 106 A Crim R 578, considered R v Vanderwerff [1999] QCA 169, considered COUNSEL: J R Hunter for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)…
R v Daphney
[1999] QCA 69

…002] QCA 151, considered R v Collins [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered R v Crossley (1999) A Crim R 80, considered R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered R v Jones [2…
R v Stinton
[1999] QCA 15

…[1999] QCA 408, considered R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527, applied R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, considered R v Taylor and Napatali; ex parte Attorney-General (1999) 106 A Crim R 578, considered R v Vanderwerff [1999] QCA 169, considered COUNSEL: J R Hunter for the applica…
Siganto v the Queen
[1998] HCA 74

…[33](1998) 194 CLR 656.…
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd
[1997] HCA 2 Para 1

…ver [1957] AC 436 at 461-463 per Simonds CJ, 467 per Norman LJ; approved by the High Court in CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408. See also Wacando v Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1 at 23 per Mason J.…
Sandvik Australia Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia
[1990] FCA 828 Para 1

…e, I do not wish to express a concluded view. [9]2000 Act, s 81. [10]See Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1989) 89 ALR 213, 216 and s 14A, Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).…
Veen v The Queen (No 2)
[1988] HCA 14

…[12](1988) 164 CLR 465 at p 472.…
Waugh v Kippen
[1986] HCA 12 Para 1

…doing so. [117] R v Maxfield [2000] QCA 320. [118] Smith v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134 at p 139; Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 at p 164.…
Smith v Corrective Services Commission (NSW)
[1980] HCA 49 Para 1

…have enacted it if only they had thought of doing so. [117] R v Maxfield [2000] QCA 320. [118] Smith v Corrective Services Commission (NSW) (1980) 147 CLR 134 at p 139; Waugh v Kippen (1986) 160 CLR 156 at p 164.…
Wacando v The Commonwealth
[1981] HCA 60 Para 1

…LJ; approved by the High Court in CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408. See also Wacando v Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1 at 23 per Mason J.…
[1957] AC 436
[1957] AC 436 Para 1

…elf or other members of society.” Regard may properly be had to the preamble in interpreting the Act: Attorney-General v Prince Ernest of Hanover [1957] AC 436 at 461-463 per Simonds CJ, 467 per Norman LJ; approved by the High Court in CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384 at 408…
Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia
111 ER 32 Para 1

…aration and thorough argument on the issue, I do not wish to express a concluded view. [9]2000 Act, s 81. [10]See Sandvik Australia Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1989) 89 ALR 213, 216 and s 14A, Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).…

Legislation cited in this decision · 7

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
13, 161D, 3 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld)
134, 81 3 mentions (from Para 1)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
32A 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Corrective Services Act 1988 (Qld)
122 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Criminal Law Amendment Act 1945 (Qld)
1 mention
Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences) Amendment Act 1997 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
1 mention (from Para 1)

CITATION:	R v Eveleigh [2002] QCA 219
PARTIES:	R v EVELEIGH, Allan John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 356 of 2001 DC No 3207 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 June 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 April 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fryberg and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; Fryberg and Mullins JJ concurring as to the orders made, McMurdo P dissenting in part.
ORDERS:	1. Subject to paragraph (2), application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed 2. Leave granted for both parties to make further submissions in writing within seven days regarding whether a declaration as to the operation of s 135(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2000 should be made
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Factors to be taken into account – Totality – Sentences for several offences – Where serious violent offence declaration made under s 161B(3) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 – Whether declaration made sentence manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – Judgment and Punishment – Non-parole period or minimum term – Queensland – Where applicant serving four terms of imprisonment – Where one offence declared to be a serious violent offence – Where trial judge made no recommendation for post-prison community based release – Interpretation of s 135(2) Corrective Services Act 2000 Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 134, s 135(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 3, s 9, s 13, s 157, s 161B R v Bird and Schipper [2000] QCA 94, considered R v Bojovic [2000] 2 Qd R 183, applied R v Booth [2001] 1 Qd R 393, considered R v B; ex parte Attorney-General [2000] QCA 110, considered R v Bui [2002] QCA 151, considered R v Collins [2000] 1 Qd R 45, considered R v Crossley (1999) A Crim R 80, considered R v Daphney [1999] QCA 69, considered R v DeSalvo [2002] QCA 63, considered R v Hardie [1999] QCA 352, considered R v Herford [2001] QCA 177, considered R v Irving [2001] QCA 472, considered R v Jones [2000] QCA 84, considered R v Keating [2002] QCA 19, considered R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79, considered R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered R v McCartney [1999] QCA 238, considered R v Moore; ex parte Attorney-General [2002] QCA 116, considered R v Newcombe and Middleton [1999] QCA 408, considered R v Palmer [2000] QCA 15, considered R v Shillingsworth [2002] 1 Qd R 527, applied R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15, considered R v Taylor and Napatali; ex parte Attorney-General (1999) 106 A Crim R 578, considered R v Vanderwerff [1999] QCA 169, considered
COUNSEL:	J R Hunter for the applicant D L Meredith for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions…