R v Goodall

[2013] QCA 72

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Goodall [2013] QCA 72

PARTIES:

R
v
GOODALL, Michael Luke
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 324 of 2012
DC No 1517 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 April 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 March 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The application for leave to appeal is granted;

2.    The appeal is allowed;

3.    The orders of the learned sentencing judge are set aside and the following orders made:

4.    In respect of counts 1 and 2, sentence the applicant to two years imprisonment and order that the term of imprisonment be suspended after serving a period of six months. The operational period under the order will be three years and the applicant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within the operational period if he is to avoid being dealt with for the suspended term of imprisonment;

5.    In respect of count 3, sentence the applicant to six months imprisonment at the end of which he is to be released under the supervision of a corrective services officer for a period of one year. When released he must comply with the requirements set out in s 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. He must also comply with the special condition that he submit to such psychiatric or psychological treatment as may be directed by an authorised corrective services officer.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – SEXUAL OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of using electronic communications to expose a child under 16 to indecent matter – where the child was a real child – where the child initially made contact – where applicant sentenced to two years imprisonment – where the parole eligibility date was set at one-third of the head sentence – whether the sentence imposed was proportional – whether the parole eligibility date ought to have been one-sixth of the head sentence

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 92(1)(b)

R v Bedeau [2009] QCA 43, cited
R v Burdon; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) (2005) A Crim R 104; [2005] QCA 147, considered
R v Campbell[2004] QCA 342, cited
R v Hays (2006) 160 A Crim R 45; [2006] QCA 20, cited
R v Kennings[2004] QCA 162, considered
R v McGrath [2006] 2 Qd R 58; [2005] QCA 463, considered

COUNSEL:

J McInnes for the applicant
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of Douglas J…