SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Hurst; ex parte Commonwealth DPP [2005] QCA 25
PARTIES:
R
v
HURST, Joe
(respondent)
EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 387 of 2004
DC No 2334 of 2004DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Appeal by Cth DPP
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
14 February 2005DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 February 2005
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Mackenzie J and Chesterman J
Separate reasons for judgment for each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
1. Appeal allowed
2. Vary the sentence imposed at first instance by deleting that part of the order that Mr Hurst be released forthwith and instead order that he be released after serving six months imprisonment otherwise confirm the sentence imposed below
3. Order that a Bench Warrant be issued but to lie in
the registry for seven daysCATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where respondent pleaded guilty by ex officio indictment to one count of defrauding the Commonwealth and one count of dishonestly obtaining financial advantage from the Commonwealth – where sentenced to three years imprisonment suspended forthwith under s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) upon recognizance of $1000 on condition he remain of good behaviour for three years – where ordered to pay repatriation to the Commonwealth of $65,089.87 under s 21B Crimes Act 1941 (Cth) – where maximum penalty on each count 10 years imprisonment – where respondent suffered traumatic early life – where some minor and old criminal history – where expressed remorse – where made genuine effort to repay debt to Commonwealth – whether sentence manifestly inadequate
R v Holdsworth [1993] QCA 242; CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993, considered
R v Oag [1993] QCA 225; CA No 73 of 1993, 17 June 1993, considered
R v White CA No 411 of 1986, 3 April 1987, considered
R v Wright (1994) 74 A Crim R 152, consideredCOUNSEL:
M C Chowdury for the appellant
S J Keim SC for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the appellant
Ron Sherman for the respondent
THE PRESIDENT: Mr Hurst pleaded guilty on 4 October 2004, to one count of defrauding the Commonwealth between 31 January 1995 and 23 May 2001 and one count of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth between 24 May 2001 and 21 January 2003. He was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment to be released forthwith, under s 20(1)(b)Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $1,000, on condition that he be of good behaviour for three years and was additionally ordered under s 21B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to pay reparation to the Commonwealth of $65,089.87. The maximum penalty on…
Continue reading R v Hurst; ex parte
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Hurst; ex parte [2005] QCA 25
- Case
- [2005] QCA 25
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate in light of the seriousness of the offences, the maximum penalties available, and the circumstances of the offender. The court noted Hurst's traumatic early life and minor criminal history, as well as his expression of remorse and efforts to repay the debt. However, the court found that the sentence was inadequate because it did not reflect the seriousness of the offences or the need for general deterrence.
The court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence to require Hurst to serve six months imprisonment before being released. The court also ordered that a Bench Warrant be issued but directed that it lie in the registry for seven days. The court found that the sentence was still just and appropriate, taking into account the circumstances of the offender and the need for general deterrence.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed
2. Vary the sentence imposed at first instance by deleting that part of the order that Mr Hurst be released forthwith and instead order that he be released after serving six months imprisonment otherwise confirm the sentence imposed below
3. Order that a Bench Warrant be issued but to lie in
the registry for seven days
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.