R v Lloyd

[2011] QCA 12

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lloyd [2011] QCA 12

PARTIES:

R
v
LLOYD, Raymond Keith
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 130 of 2010
DC No 118 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice and Chesterman and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Leave to appeal against sentence granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   Sentence imposed on counts 1 to 10 be varied by deleting the orders that the applicant be eligible for parole on 16 July 2010 and instead that each sentence be suspended forthwith for an operational period of three years.

4.   Term of imprisonment imposed on count 11 be set aside and in lieu thereof that the applicant be sentenced to two years’ probation during which the applicant should undergo a course or courses suitable to address any tendency to re-offend.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to eleven counts of possessing child exploitation material – where the applicant was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each count, imposed concurrently – where the applicant remains in prison approximately six months beyond the date the judge declared him to be eligible for parole – where the applicant has served more than half the duration of the three year terms – where an order of probation after the suspension of a sentence permitted by s 92(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 is unavailable – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 228D
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 92(1)(b)

R v Gordon; ex parte Cth DPP [2009] QCA 209, cited
R v Grehan [2010] QCA 42, considered
R v Hood [2005] 2 Qd R 54, [2005] QCA 159, followed
R v Pham [2009] QCA 242, considered

COUNSEL:

J Sharp for the applicant
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1]      CHIEF JUSTICE:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Chesterman JA.  I agree with the orders proposed by his Honour, and with his reasons. 

[2]      CHESTERMAN JA:  On 20 April 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty to an ex-officio indictment which charged him with eleven counts of possessing child exploitation material contrary to s 228D of the Criminal Code.  On 18 May 2010 he was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment on each count.  The parole eligibility date was fixed at 16 July 2010, taking into account 301 days he had served in pre-sentence custody, between the applicant’s arrest and sentencing. 

[3]      The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences on the grounds that they are manifestly excessive and…