R v Liddicoat Summary

[1996] QCA 439

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA
AMBROSE J

CA No 357 of 1996

THE QUEEN

KYM ROSS LIDDICOAT Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 24/10/96

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: In this matter in view of the course which the proceedings have taken the Court thinks it unnecessary to give detailed reasons for its Judgment.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the Supreme Court trial division on 26 July 1996 in respect of offences of trafficking an amphetamine between 27 July 1995 and 20 September 1995, possession of a police scanner, phone and scales between the same dates, possession of amphetamine on 29 July 1995 and possession of cannabis sativa on 30 July 1995.

He is 33 years of age and has some previous convictions both for drug offences and both relatively minor in that he was fined only on each occasion. It is not necessary to go into the details of the offences here nor is it suggested by either counsel that the head sentence was wrong. The applicant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for trafficking, three years' imprisonment for possession of the police scanner, phone and scales and convicted, not punished for the possession of amphetamine and cannabis sativa.

In view of the circumstance that the applicant pleaded to an ex officio indictment and otherwise cooperated extensively with police it is conceded by the respondent that there should have been a recommendation for consideration for release on parole which the sentencing Judge omitted to include in the sentence. There is also common ground that the period that the applicant should serve before being considered eligible for release on parole is 12 months.

Accordingly, I would grant the application, allow the appeal only to the extent that the sentences are confirmed save that it is recommended that the applicant be considered for release on parole after serving 12 months' imprisonment.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The orders are as I have indicated.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Kym Ross Liddicoat, the applicant sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed by the Supreme Court Trial Division on July 26, 1996. Liddicoat was convicted on multiple drug-related charges, including trafficking an amphetamine, possession of a police scanner, phone, and scales, and possession of amphetamine and cannabis sativa. The applicant's legal team argued that the sentencing judge had omitted to recommend consideration for parole release, a recommendation that was conceded by the respondent to be appropriate given Liddicoat's cooperation with police during the investigation.

The legal issues before the court involved whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to recommend parole consideration and, if so, what the appropriate period for parole eligibility should be. The respondent conceded that Liddicoat should have been recommended for parole consideration after serving 12 months of his sentence, and both parties agreed on this point. The court was required to decide whether the applicant's appeal should be granted to the extent of confirming the sentences but adding a recommendation for parole consideration after 12 months.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the applicant's contention that the omission of a parole recommendation was an error. The court found that Liddicoat's cooperation with police and the nature of his previous convictions warranted a recommendation for parole consideration. Consequently, the court granted the appeal and confirmed the sentences but added a recommendation that Liddicoat be considered for release on parole after serving 12 months of his imprisonment. This decision aligns with the agreed-upon terms between the parties and ensures that Liddicoat's sentence reflects his cooperation and the agreed-upon parole eligibility period.

R v Liddicoat

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established