R v Major - [2025] QCA 5

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Major [2025] QCA 5

PARTIES:

R
v
MAJOR, Roy Maxwell
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 9 of 2024
DC No 260 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 15 December 2023 (Clarke DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

7 February 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 July 2024

JUDGES:

Dalton JA and Bradley and Hindman JJ

ORDERS:

1.   The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2.   Appeal allowed.

3.   The sentence imposed by the District Court at Rockhampton on 15 December 2023 is varied as follows:

(a)   in respect of count 1 on the indictment, the four-year sentence of imprisonment be set aside and substituted with a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment;

(b) the applicant serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of count 1 on the indictment concurrently with the activated suspended sentence imposed by the Woorabinda Magistrates Court on 12 April 2021; and

(c)   the date the applicant be eligible for parole be fixed at 12 February 2025.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of riot with circumstances of aggravation – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years for the riot offence – where the applicant was ordered to serve the whole of a six-month suspended sentence for an earlier offence cumulatively with the term of imprisonment for the riot offence – where the sentencing judge arguably failed to give reasons for making applicant serve the riot sentence and the activated suspended sentence cumulatively – whether the applicant should serve both sentences concurrently – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 122(2)(a)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A(1)

R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686, considered
R v Poynter, Norman & Parker; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 517, considered
R v SDN[2021] QCA 158, considered

COUNSEL:

S R Lewis for the applicant
M A Gawrych for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DALTON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Bradley J and with his reasons.
BRADLEY J: The applicant, Mr Major, was among more than 100 prisoners who rioted at the Capricornia Correctional Centre (Capricornia CC) on 21 and early 22 October 2021. He entered an early plea of guilty to the offence of riot with circumstances of aggravation (the riot offence)[1] in the District Court at Rockhampton. After two days remanded in custody, Mr Major was sentenced to imprisonment for four years for the riot offence.[2] The Court ordered that he serve the whole of a six-month suspended sentence for an earlier offence.[3] The Court directed that Mr Major serve this six-month term of…

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 Major

Details

AGLC: R v Major [2025] QCA 5
Case: [2025] QCA 5
Decision Date: 7 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Major, the applicant appealed against his sentence, contending that the District Court at Rockhampton erred in ordering him to serve a four-year term of imprisonment for the offence of riot, concurrently with a six-month activated suspended sentence for an earlier offence. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to provide adequate reasons for imposing the cumulative sentences.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the applicant should serve both sentences concurrently. The applicant's counsel submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge's failure to provide reasons for ordering the sentences to run concurrently was a significant error. The prosecution argued that the sentence was appropriate and that the sentencing judge had adequately considered the circumstances.

The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The sentencing judge had arguably failed to provide adequate reasons for ordering the sentences to run cumulatively, which constituted a significant error. The court held that the applicant should serve the sentences concurrently, and the four-year term of imprisonment should be reduced to three and a half years. The court also fixed the date the applicant would be eligible for parole.

The orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal was granted, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed by the District Court was varied. The four-year sentence of imprisonment was set aside and substituted with a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment. The applicant was to serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed concurrently with the activated suspended sentence imposed by the Woorabinda Magistrates Court, and the date the applicant was eligible for parole was fixed at 12 February 2025.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal is granted.

2. Appeal allowed.

3. The sentence imposed by the District Court at Rockhampton on 15 December 2023 is varied as follows:

(a) in respect of count 1 on the indictment, the four-year sentence of imprisonment be set aside and substituted with a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment;

(b) the applicant serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of count 1 on the indictment concurrently with the activated suspended sentence imposed by the Woorabinda Magistrates Court on 12 April 2021; and

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 Major [2025] QCA 5
PARTIES:	R v MAJOR, Roy Maxwell (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 9 of 2024 DC No 260 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 15 December 2023 (Clarke DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	7 February 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 July 2024
JUDGES:	Dalton JA and Bradley and Hindman JJ
ORDERS:	1. The application for leave to appeal is granted. 2. Appeal allowed. 3. The sentence imposed by the District Court at Rockhampton on 15 December 2023 is varied as follows: (a) in respect of count 1 on the indictment, the four-year sentence of imprisonment be set aside and substituted with a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment; (b) the applicant serve the sentence of imprisonment imposed in respect of count 1 on the indictment concurrently with the activated suspended sentence imposed by the Woorabinda Magistrates Court on 12 April 2021; and (c) the date the applicant be eligible for parole be fixed at 12 February 2025.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of riot with circumstances of aggravation – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years for the riot offence – where the applicant was ordered to serve the whole of a six-month suspended sentence for an earlier offence cumulatively with the term of imprisonment for the riot offence – where the sentencing judge arguably failed to give reasons for making applicant serve the riot sentence and the activated suspended sentence cumulatively – whether the applicant should serve both sentences concurrently – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 122(2)(a) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 159A(1) R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686, considered R v Poynter, Norman & Parker; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 517, considered R v SDN[2021] QCA 158, considered
COUNSEL:	S R Lewis for the applicant M A Gawrych for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent