SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Lovi [2012] QCA 24
PARTIES:
R
v
LOVI, Adam Robert
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 286 of 2011
DC No 906 of 2011DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 February 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 February 2012
JUDGES:
Chief Justice, Muir JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. The sentences imposed at first instance with respect to counts 1-14 and 16 are set aside.
4. The applicant is resentenced as follows:
a) With respect to count 15 the applicant be imprisoned for a period of 12 months and that he be released forthwith upon his giving security by recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years;
b) With respect to counts 1-4 the applicant be imprisoned for a period of one month and that he be released forthwith upon his giving security by recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years;
c) With respect to counts 5-14 the applicant be imprisoned for a period of six months and that he be released forthwith upon his giving security by recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years;
d) With respect to count 16 the applicant be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of two years and comply with the requirements set out in s 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and report within 24 hours to an Authorised Corrective Services Officer at a designated location.
5. All terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently.
6. It is directed that the applicant’s legal advisors give him the explanations required by s 95 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and s 16F of the Crimes Act.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – LACK OF JURISDICTION – SENTENCING AFRESH – where the applicant was sentenced in the District Court for 15 counts of using a carriage service to access child pornography (counts 1-15) and one count of possessing child exploitation material (count 16) – where the applicant received a head sentence of 12 months and was required to serve two months in actual custody – where the District Court did not have jurisdiction to hear count 15 when the maximum penalty for possessing child exploitation had increased from 10 to 15 years – where the conviction for count 15 was quashed and sentence set aside – where the applicant re-arraigned before this Court and entered a plea of guilty – where the applicant was 16, 17 and 18 at the time of the offending – where the applicant was 19 at the time of sentencing – whether the Court should have regard to the fact the applicant was a…
Continue reading R v Lovi
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Lovi [2012] QCA 24
- Case
- [2012] QCA 24
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant was re-arraigned before the court and pleaded guilty to the remaining counts. The court had to decide whether it should consider the applicant's age at the time of the offending when sentencing and whether a conviction should be recorded. The applicant was 16, 17, and 18 at the time of the offending, and 19 at the time of sentencing.
The court found that the applicant's age at the time of the offending should be taken into account when sentencing. The court set aside the original sentences and resentenced the applicant. The applicant was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment for count 15, one month imprisonment for counts 1-4, and six months imprisonment for counts 5-14. The sentences were to be served concurrently. The applicant was also released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of two years for count 16. The court directed the applicant’s legal advisors to give him the explanations required by s 95 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and s 16F of the Crimes Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2. Appeal allowed.
3. The sentences imposed at first instance with respect to counts 1-14 and 16 are set aside.
4. The applicant is resentenced as follows:
a) With respect to count 15 the applicant be imprisoned for a period of 12 months and that he be released forthwith upon his giving security by recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years;
b) With respect to counts 1-4 the applicant be imprisoned for a period of one month and that he be released forthwith upon his giving security by recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years;
c) With respect to counts 5-14 the applicant be imprisoned for a period of six months and that he be released forthwith upon his giving security by recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of two years;
d) With respect to count 16 the applicant be released under the supervision of an authorised corrective services officer for a period of two years and comply with the requirements set out in s 93(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and report within 24 hours to an Authorised Corrective Services Officer at a designated location.
5. All terms of imprisonment are to be served concurrently.
6. It is directed that the applicant’s legal advisors give him the explanations required by s 95 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and s 16F of the Crimes Act.
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.