R v Latter - [2025] QCA 70

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Latter [2025] QCA 70

PARTIES:

R
v
LATTER, Steven Dale
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 139 of 2024
SC No 465 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 23 May 2024 (Martin SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 March 2025

JUDGES:

Boddice and Brown JJA and Crow J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant received a sentence of ten years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter – where the applicant received a sentence of two years imprisonment for the offence of stealing cash from the deceased – where the sentencing judge ordered the two years imprisonment sentence for the stealing offence to be served concurrently with the ten year manslaughter sentence – where the applicant, pursuant to s 182(2)(a) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), is eligible to apply for parole after having served 80 per cent of his term of imprisonment – where the applicant’s friend and co-accused received a sentence of nine years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter – where the sentencing judge did not set any parole eligibility date for the co-accused – whether the sentencing judge erred in law and failed to apply the principle of parity in sentencing – whether there is a disparity between the sentences of the two co-accused such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B

Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, cited

COUNSEL:

L D Reece for the applicant
D Kovac for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE COURT: On 23 May 2024, the applicant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with the declaration of a serious violent offence pursuant to s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) for the manslaughter of Mr Jacob Opacic. The applicant was also sentenced to two years imprisonment for the offence of stealing $9,200 in cash from the deceased, after he had run him down with a motor vehicle. The two years was ordered to be served concurrently with the 10 year manslaughter sentence. Pursuant to s 182(2)(a) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), the applicant is eligible to apply for parole after having served 80 per cent of his term of imprisonment.
The applicant’s friend and co-accused, Johnson, was sentenced to nine years imprisonment for the manslaughter of Mr Opacic. The sentencing judge did not set any parole eligibility date, with the statutory consequence under s 184(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) that Johnson was eligible for parole the day after he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Latter

Details

AGLC: R v Latter [2025] QCA 70
Case: [2025] QCA 70
Decision Date: 16 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Latter involved the applicant appealing against his sentence for the offences of manslaughter and stealing cash from the deceased. The applicant had been sentenced to ten years imprisonment for manslaughter and two years imprisonment for the stealing offence, with the latter sentence to be served concurrently with the former. The applicant sought leave to appeal on the basis that the sentencing judge had failed to apply the principle of parity in sentencing and had created a disparity between his sentence and that of his co-accused. The applicant argued that the sentences were so disparate as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

The legal issues in the case were whether the sentencing judge had erred in law by failing to apply the principle of parity in sentencing and whether there was a disparity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-accused that was so significant as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. The applicant submitted that the principle of parity in sentencing required that co-offenders receive similar sentences, and that the disparity between the applicant's sentence and that of his co-accused was such that it created a sense of grievance. The respondent argued that the sentencing judge had not erred in law and that there was no disparity between the sentences that was so significant as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.

The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in law and had appropriately exercised their discretion in sentencing the applicant. The court found that there was no principle of parity in sentencing that required co-offenders to receive similar sentences, and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the relevant principles and factors in determining the appropriate sentence for the applicant. The court also found that there was no disparity between the sentences of the applicant and his co-accused that was so significant as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance. The court held that the applicant was eligible for parole after serving 80 per cent of his sentence, which was a more favourable outcome than that of his co-accused, and that this did not create a sense of grievance.

The court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal his sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal sentence is refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Latter [2025] QCA 70
PARTIES:	R v LATTER, Steven Dale (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 139 of 2024 SC No 465 of 2024
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 23 May 2024 (Martin SJA)
DELIVERED ON:	16 May 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 March 2025
JUDGES:	Boddice and Brown JJA and Crow J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – PARITY BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS AND OTHER RELATED OFFENDERS – where the applicant received a sentence of ten years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter – where the applicant received a sentence of two years imprisonment for the offence of stealing cash from the deceased – where the sentencing judge ordered the two years imprisonment sentence for the stealing offence to be served concurrently with the ten year manslaughter sentence – where the applicant, pursuant to s 182(2)(a) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), is eligible to apply for parole after having served 80 per cent of his term of imprisonment – where the applicant’s friend and co-accused received a sentence of nine years imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter – where the sentencing judge did not set any parole eligibility date for the co-accused – whether the sentencing judge erred in law and failed to apply the principle of parity in sentencing – whether there is a disparity between the sentences of the two co-accused such as to give rise to a justifiable sense of grievance Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 182 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161B Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49, cited
COUNSEL:	L D Reece for the applicant D Kovac for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent