R v Kuzmanovski; ex parte

[2012] QCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kuzmanovski; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2012] QCA 19

PARTIES:

R
v
KUZMANOVSKI, Aleksandar
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 250 of 2011
DC No 180 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

24 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 February 2012

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where respondent pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery and was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment with an immediate parole release date – where appellant argues that the release of the respondent on immediate parole was plainly unreasonable and unjust – where respondent stole a motor vehicle – where respondent produced a replica weapon – where complainant suffered distress and impairment to income earning capacity – where the respondent entered an early guilty plea and cooperated with authorities – where respondent suffered from Asperger’s Disorder – where impairments in respondent’s working memory and verbal comprehension were likely to affect his reasoning and judgment – where respondent’s capacity to understand the consequences of his behaviour was significantly impaired – where respondent was influenced by a computer game – where respondent had no prior criminal history – where psychologist suggested that future re-offending could be prevented – where psychologist suggested that if respondent was incarcerated he would be “highly susceptible” to the influences of more skilled delinquents – where psychologist suggested that prospects of rehabilitation, and therefore the protection of community against future re-offending, would be improved by not incarcerating respondent – whether immediate release on parole was manifestly inadequate

Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011] HCA 10, cited
R v Dullroy & Yates; ex parte A‑G (Qld)[2005] QCA 219, applied
R v Moss [1999] QCA 426, considered

COUNSEL:

A W Moynihan SC for the appellant
J McInnes for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. MUIR JA:  I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by Fraser JA.

1. FRASER JA: On 12 August 2011 the respondent pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery on 26 July 2010.  He was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment with an immediate parole release date.  It was ordered that a copy of a psychological report on the respondent be provided to Queensland Corrective Services. 

1. The Attorney-General has appealed against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly inadequate.  The Director of Public Prosecutions, who appeared for the Attorney-General, accepted that the sentence of three years imprisonment was within range but he argued that to release the respondent…