R v Fletcher - [2011] QSC 235

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Fletcher [2011] QSC 235

PARTIES:

R
(applicant)
v
LLOYD CLARK FLETCHER
(respondent)

FILE NO:

Indictment No 425 of 1997

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Indefinite Sentence Review

DELIVERED ON:

11 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 and 11 August 2011

JUDGE:

Mullins J

ORDER:

Indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent on 14 July 1998 in respect of count 4 on indictment 425 of 1997 is confirmed.

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

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 163, s 171, s 173

R v Fletcher [1998] QCA 286, considered

R v Wilson [1998] 2 Qd R 599, considered

COUNSEL:

D A Holliday for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

HER HONOUR: This is the first periodic review of the indefinite sentence imposed on Lloyd Clark Fletcher (the respondent) on 14 July 1998, for the offence of disabling in order to commit an indictable offence - rape, that was committed on 20 April 1997.

The nominate sentence that attaches to the indefinite sentence is life imprisonment. This review is required under section 171 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (the Act).

The respondent appealed to the Court of Appeal against the indefinite sentence, and that appeal was dismissed. It is convenient to rely on the history of the respondent's offending which is set out in the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal in R v Fletcher [1998] QCA 286.

I heard submissions from Ms Holliday of counsel on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions on 8 August 2011. The respondent was unrepresented at the hearing of the review of the indefinite sentence, and indicated that he did not oppose the indefinite sentence continuing, and, effectively, did not participate in the hearing other than by being present.

The respondent's attitude does not avoid the need for the Court to consider, pursuant to section 173 subsection (1) of the Act, whether the respondent is still a serious danger to the community when the review is made.

The approach to the review must be informed by the considerations under section 163 of the Act that are specified as relevant to determining whether an offender is a serious danger to the community.

Consistent with the approach taken by the Court of Appeal in R v Fletcher [1998] QCA 286, in reliance on the observations of Justice Pincus in R v Wilson [1998] 2 Qd R 599 at 668, whether the respondent is still a serious danger to the community at the time of the review, requires the Court to consider the present risk that the respondent presents to the community, and prospective risk to the community, if the indefinite sentence were…

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 Fletcher

Details

AGLC: R v Fletcher [2011] QSC 235
Case: [2011] QSC 235
Decision Date: 11 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Fletcher came before the court to address the confirmation of an indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent in 1998. The respondent had been found guilty of various charges, and the court had determined that an indefinite sentence was appropriate given the nature of the offences and the risk the respondent posed to the community. The court's task was to review the periodic assessments of the respondent's risk and determine whether the indefinite sentence should be upheld.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent remained a serious danger to the community, warranting the continuation of an indefinite sentence. This required the court to examine the periodic reviews conducted by the relevant authorities, which assessed the respondent's risk level and suitability for release. The court had to decide if the evidence presented in these reviews sufficiently demonstrated that the respondent still posed a significant danger to the public.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the evidence from the periodic reviews, which included expert assessments and observations from correctional officers. The court found that the reviews consistently indicated that the respondent continued to pose a serious risk to the community. The court was satisfied that the evidence supported the conclusion that the respondent's indefinite sentence should be confirmed, as there was no indication that the risk had diminished. The court therefore upheld the original sentence, affirming that the respondent remained a serious danger to the community.

The final orders of the court confirmed the indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent on 14 July 1998 in respect of count 4 on indictment 425 of 1997. The court's decision was based on the periodic reviews which demonstrated that the respondent continued to pose a significant risk to the public. The sentence was thus upheld, ensuring that the respondent remains subject to the conditions of the indefinite sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent on 14 July 1998 in respect of count 4 on indictment 425 of 1997 is confirmed.

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 Fletcher [2011] QSC 235
PARTIES:	R (applicant) v LLOYD CLARK FLETCHER (respondent)
FILE NO:	Indictment No 425 of 1997
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Indefinite Sentence Review
DELIVERED ON:	11 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 and 11 August 2011
JUDGE:	Mullins J
ORDER:	Indefinite sentence imposed on the respondent on 14 July 1998 in respect of count 4 on indictment 425 of 1997 is confirmed.
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 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 163, s 171, s 173 R v Fletcher [1998] QCA 286, considered R v Wilson [1998] 2 Qd R 599, considered
COUNSEL:	D A Holliday for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf