Legal Research
Cases
R v Kunst

R v Kunst

Case [2002] QCA 400 10 April 2002

Judicial Review

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2002] QCA 400

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
JERRARD JA
WILSON J

CA No 120 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v.

CAREY BRUCE KUNST Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 04/10/2002

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The Court consisted of Justices Jerrard, Wilson and me.

The order is that the application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

I publish the reasons of the members of the Court.

-----

Details

AGLC: R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400
Case: [2002] QCA 400
Decision Date: 04/10/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kunst was heard by the Court of Appeal in Brisbane, with Justices Jerrard, Wilson and McPherson presiding. The applicant, Carey Bruce Kunst, sought leave to appeal against a decision made by a lower court. The primary focus of the appeal was the legal determination made in the original case and the subsequent ruling that was made by the lower court.

The central legal issues that the Court of Appeal was required to decide involved the interpretation and application of the law in relation to the original case. Specifically, the Court needed to determine whether the lower court had correctly applied the law and whether there were any errors in the legal reasoning or findings that warranted an appeal.

The Court of Appeal thoroughly examined the arguments presented by the applicant and the submissions made by the Crown. After careful consideration, the Court found that the lower court had correctly applied the law and that there were no grounds for an appeal. The Court determined that the legal issues had been properly addressed and that the decision made by the lower court was sound. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court upheld the decision of the lower court and found no merit in the appeal. The judgment was delivered by Justice McPherson, with Justices Jerrard and Wilson concurring.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

Actions

Citations

R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400

Most Recent Citation

R v Josey; ex parte [2003] QCA 44

Cases Citing This Decision

9

R v Wilson [2016] QCA 301
Citation 1 (Para 32)

…, Ms Wilson’s history, her plea of guilty, and the range of sentences indicated by the comparable cases relied on at sentencing.[34] [34] R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400; R v Karger [1999] QCA 433; and R v Clare [1999] QCA 227. The disqualification…
R v Harrison [2015] QCA 210
Citation 2

…The Prosecutor at sentence referred to R v Bryant (2007) 173 A Crim R 88, R v Gabbert [2010] QCA 133 and R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400. He emphasised the sentencing principles of deterrence and community protection.…
R v Gabbert [2010] QCA 133
Citation 3

…aly (2004) 147 A Crim R 440; [2004] QCA 385, considered R v Duggan [2004] QCA 442, considered R v Kunst [2003] 2 Qd R 98; [2002] QCA 400, considered R v L [2002] QCA 485, cited R v Neave [1995] QCA 342, considered R v Robinson [2008] QCA 365, considered COUNSEL: A Collins for the applicant A Anderson for the resp…
R v. Robinson [2008] QCA 365
Citation 4

…] QCA 187 , considered R v King, unreported, Supreme Court, Qld, SC No 16 of 2008, 15 July 2008, considered R v Kunst [2003] 2 Qd R 98; [2002] QCA 400, considered COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf G Cummings for the Respondent SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public…
R v Carter [2008] QCA 226
Citation 5 (Para 1)

…[2][2002] QCA 400. The applicant sought to argue by reference to the decision of this Court in R v Kunst [2] that more serious offending than his had attracted sentences which led to a period of imprisonment of 12 months before release on parole. That case does not assist the applicant. It was a case where there…
R v Murray [2006] QCA 154
Citation 6 (Para 14)

…The same general comparison can be made between Mr Murray and the applicant in R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400, where that applicant pleaded guilty to four offences of unlawfully supplying methylamphetamine to another between 28 August 2000 and 20 September 2000. His offending was over a one month period; on the first t…
R v Edie [2006] QCA 111
Citation 7

…)(b) AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, considered R v Guthrie [2002] QCA 509; (2002) 135 A Crim R 292, considered R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400; [2003] 2 Qd R 98, considered R v Moss [1999] QCA 426; CA No 270 of 1999, 8 October 1999, considered R v Wishart and Jenkins [1994] 2 Qd R 421, considered COUN…
R v Gander [2005] QCA 45
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…I think there is substance in that argument. The facts here differ from those in R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400, where that applicant had been in and out of custody on a number of occasions prior to his ultimate sentence, being re-arrested and then sentenced for offences committed while on bail awaiting ultimate senten…
R v Josey; ex parte [2003] QCA 44
Citation 9

…on Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 189, s 161 R v Kavanagh [1993] QCA 159; CA No 64 of 1993, 5 April 1993, distinguished R v Kunst [2002] QCA 400; CA No 120 of 2002, 4 October 2002, considered R v Savo [1994] QCA 513; CA No 334 of 1994, 25 October 1994, distinguished R v Whelan [1998] QCA 151; CA No 430…

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0

AI Chat coming soon