R v Frame

[2009] QCA 9

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Frame [2009] QCA 9

PARTIES:

R
v
FRAME, Damien James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 288 of 2008
SC No 670 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

13 February 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 February 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW — APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL — APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE — GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE — PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS — where sentence allegedly manifestly excessive insofar as the applicant was eligible for parole after serving 40 per cent of sentence whereas co-offender was eligible for parole after serving 33 and one third per cent of sentence — where sentence nonetheless accords with applicant's submissions before sentencing judge — whether sentence manifestly excessive

R v AAF [2008] QCA 235, cited
R v Carter [2008] QCA 226, cited
R v Walsh [2008] QCA 391, cited

COUNSEL:

C W Heaton for the applicant
M J Copley SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. KEANE JA:  On 8 July 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of interfering with a corpse.  On 10 October 2008 the applicant was sentenced to seven and a half years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter and 18 months imprisonment in respect of the other offence to be served concurrently.  The learned sentencing judge declared 775 days pre-sentence custody as time served, and fixed a parole eligibility date of 23 August 2009. 

1. The applicant was 26 years old at the time of the offences.  He has a history of minor criminal offending.

1. On the evening of 27 June 2006 the applicant and his co-offender, McPhee, killed the deceased in a brawl which followed a drinking bout.  They dragged the body to the garage of the house where the applicant lived, and later removed the corpse from the garage and dumped the body elsewhere.  Having regard to the issues raised on the application for leave to appeal, it is unnecessary to give a more elaborate statement of the circumstances of the offending or of the applicant's personal circumstances.  It should be noted, however, that the applicant co-operated with the authorities, promptly admitting his role in the death of the deceased and offering to give evidence against his co-offender. 

1. The applicant was sentenced on the basis that his level of culpability was less than that of his co-offender who was sentenced to eight and a half years imprisonment with parole eligibility after he had served 34 months of his sentence.

1. It should be noted immediately that the sentence which was imposed on the applicant was precisely in accordance with the submissions made on his behalf by able and experienced counsel.  It…