SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Johnson [2007] QCA 433
PARTIES:
R
v
JOHNSON, Russ Douglas
(applicant/appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 151 of 2007
SC No 5 of 2007DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Mt Isa
DELIVERED ON:
7 December 2007
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
29 November 2007
JUDGES:
Williams, Keane and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Application for leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Sentences below set aside4. The applicant is sentenced to eight years imprisonment on the first count and seven years imprisonment on the second count. These sentences are to be served concurrently. A period of 351 days is declared as time already served. The applicant's parole eligibility date is fixed at 27 November 2008
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – where applicant convicted of one count of trafficking in methylamphetamine and one count of trafficking in cannabis sativa – where applicant sentenced to nine years imprisonment on first count and a concurrent sentence of seven years imprisonment on second count – where sentence affected by error in that different parole eligibility dates fixed on each count – where Court required to resentence applicant
AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111, applied
R v Coleman [2006] QCA 442; CA No 213 of 2006,
3 November 2006, consideredCOUNSEL:
A W Moynihan SC for the applicant/appellant
S G Bain for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: I agree with Keane JA.
KEANE JA: On 28 March 2007 the applicant was sentenced, following his plea of guilty to an ex officio indictment, in respect of one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine between 1 January 2001 and 3 April 2006, and one count of trafficking in the dangerous drug cannabis sativa between 1 January 2001 and 3 April 2006.
On the first count he was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of 27 March 2009. On the second count he was sentenced to a concurrent sentence of seven years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date of
27 June 2008. A period of pre-sentence custody of 351 days was declared as time already served under these sentences.
It is not disputed by the respondent that, under s 160C, s 160E and s 160F of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ("the Act"), only one parole eligibility date should have been fixed by the learned sentencing judge.
Having regard to the learned sentencing judge's error in fixing two parole eligibility dates, it is, I think, necessary in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal to ensure that sentence is lawfully passed on…
Continue reading R v Johnson
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Johnson [2007] QCA 433
- Case
- [2007] QCA 433
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue before the court was whether the error in setting different parole eligibility dates constituted a material error affecting the fairness or integrity of the sentence, thereby warranting a resentencing. The court had to determine the appropriate exercise of its powers in cases where an error of this nature was present in the original sentencing. The court also had to consider the appropriate sentence to impose in light of the error.
The court found that the error in setting different parole eligibility dates constituted a material error. This error had affected the overall fairness of the sentence, and therefore, the original sentence could not stand. The court exercised its powers to resentence the applicant, considering the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The court determined that the appropriate sentence was eight years imprisonment on the first count and seven years on the second count, to be served concurrently, with a parole eligibility date of 27 November 2008. The court declared that the applicant had already served 351 days of the sentence. The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentences, and imposed the new sentence as outlined above.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed
3. Sentences below set aside
4. The applicant is sentenced to eight years imprisonment on the first count and seven years imprisonment on the second count. These sentences are to be served concurrently. A period of 351 days is declared as time already served. The applicant's parole eligibility date is fixed at 27 November 2008
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.