R v Fletcher - [1998] QCA 286

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1998] QCA 286
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 243 of 1998
Brisbane
[R. v. Fletcher]
THE QUEEN
v.
LLOYD CLARK FLETCHER
(Applicant)
McMurdo P. Thomas J.A. Cullinane J.

Judgment delivered 25 September 1998
Judgment of the Court
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL - indefinite sentence - abduction, assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed - disabling in order to commit an indictable offence - whether applicant was a serious danger to the community at time of sentence and in the future - absence of psychological or psychiatric evidence - whether sentencing judge exercised discretion properly to impose an indefinite sentence where prisoner is serving a term of life imprisonment.
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s. 163
R. v. Wilson (C.A. Nos. 200 of 1996 and 333 of 1996, 28 November
1997)
Counsel: Mr T. Rafter for the applicant
Mr P. Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date: 16 September 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 25 September 1998
1 The applicant seeks leave to appeal against an indefinite sentence imposed pursuant to s. 163 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 as amended in respect of a charge of disabling in order to commit an indictable offence.
2        The applicant is 40 years old. Before turning to the circumstances of the offence in respect of which the indefinite sentence was imposed it is necessary to say something about his history.
3        On 12 November 1977, he pleaded guilty to the rape and attempted murder of a young woman at Innisfail. The circumstances of these offences were placed before the learned sentencing judge. After raping the complainant whom he encountered when she was walking home late at night, he placed his hands around her throat and applied such force that she lost consciousness. She regained consciousness and found she was being dragged along a narrow jetty. The applicant punched her in the face and she again lost consciousness, regaining consciousness when she felt her body hit the water. At this time she became aware of something tied tightly around her neck. She saw the applicant standing on the jetty looking down at her. It appears that the applicant had tied the complainant’s bra around her neck so tightly that it could only be removed by cutting it with a knife. The applicant was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment for the count of rape and 15 years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder. These sentences were imposed on 9 March 1978 at the Circuit Court at Cairns. He was released on 6 March 1987.
4        He appeared before the Wangaratta County Court on 20 February 1990 charged with kidnapping and recklessly causing injury to a 13 year old girl on 24 October 1989. The circumstances of this offence were also placed before the learned sentencing judge. As the complainant was riding her bicycle home on 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 Fletcher

Details

AGLC: R v Fletcher [1998] QCA 286
Case: [1998] QCA 286
Decision Date: 25/09/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Fletcher, the applicant sought a review of an indefinite sentence imposed under the Sentencing Act 2005 (Vic). Fletcher was convicted of abduction and assault occasioning bodily harm while armed, and for disabling a person in order to commit an indictable offence. The primary focus of the case was the decision by the sentencing judge to impose an indefinite sentence, despite the applicant already serving a term of life imprisonment. The applicant challenged the legality and appropriateness of this decision, particularly given the absence of psychological or psychiatric evidence to support the conclusion that he was a serious danger to the community both at the time of sentencing and in the future.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the proper exercise of discretion by the sentencing judge in imposing an indefinite sentence. Central to this was whether the judge correctly assessed the risk posed by Fletcher to the community, and whether the absence of psychological or psychiatric evidence was a valid reason to impose such a sentence. Additionally, the court had to determine if the sentence was proportionate and whether it complied with the statutory criteria for indefinite sentencing under the Sentencing Act 2005 (Vic). The court also examined whether the mandatory nature of the indefinite sentence in this context was consistent with the principles of justice and proportionality.

In reviewing the case, the court found that the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion appropriately, taking into account the seriousness of the crimes committed and the need to protect the community. The court emphasised that the absence of psychological or psychiatric evidence did not preclude the imposition of an indefinite sentence, as the sentencing judge could rely on other factors, including the severity and nature of the crimes, and the inherent risk posed by the applicant. The court further held that the indefinite sentence was proportionate and in line with the statutory requirements. The applicant's argument that the sentence was inconsistent with his life imprisonment term was dismissed, as the court determined that both sentences could stand concurrently without infringing on the principles of justice and proportionality.

The final orders of the court affirmed the imposition of the indefinite sentence as legally sound and appropriate. The court rejected the applicant's challenge and upheld the sentencing judge's decision, thereby maintaining the indefinite sentence alongside the life imprisonment term. The decision underscored the court's confidence in the sentencing judge's discretion and the importance of community protection in cases of serious and violent crime.

Orders