R v Mamea Summary | CaseChat AU

[2010] QCA 234

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES JA
FRASER JA
WHITE JA

CA No 52 of 2010
DC No 1866 of 2008
DC No 2065 of 2009
DC No 3421 of 2008
DC No 3244 of 2009

THE QUEEN

SAVELIO MAMEA Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 27/08/2010

JUDGMENT

APPLICANT appeared on his own behalf

MR M J COPLEY, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

...

HOLMES JA: The applicant was sentenced in respect of a number of offences which do not require detailing at the present time. The most serious of them was a rape, in respect of which the learned sentencing Judge considered a sentence of seven and a half year appropriate, and cumulative upon that was another sentence of two years for an assault occasioning bodily harm committed in the course of a home invasion.

Taking various factors into account, his Honour concluded that the appropriate course, having imposed those sentences, was to set a parole eligibility date halfway through the sentence but to allow for a three month period of imprisonment, which was not declarable but which the appellant had already served, and to take that date back, then, by three months from what otherwise would have been four years and nine months, as half the sentence.

He also declared 286 days in custody but he did not make any allowance for that in setting the parole eligibility date. It seems to me that that was an error because his Honour clearly intended that the prisoner not serve more than half of his sentence and made the allowance I have already referred to.

The period of imprisonment which was declared, as I have said, was 286 days or nine and a half months. Allowing for that period already in custody, it would seem consistent with his Honour’s reasoning that the parole eligibility date should have been set after three years and eight and a half months, which would have been 13 November 2013. I might say that the applicant has not made any submissions as to why his sentence was excessive, and I am satisfied that, in fact, it was a proper sentence for the offences committed; but the variation to which I have alluded should be made.

I would vary the sentence simply to the extent of setting aside the parole eligibility date of 26 August 2014 and substituting a parole eligibility date of 13 November 2013.

FRASER JA: I agree.

WHITE JA: I agree.

HOLMES JA: That is the order of the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Queen v Savelio Mamea, the Court of Appeal in Queensland reviewed the applicant's sentence and parole eligibility date. The applicant, Savelio Mamea, was convicted of multiple offences, including rape and assault occasioning bodily harm. He was sentenced to a total of nine and a half months imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date set at four years and nine months from the commencement of the sentence. The Court of Appeal considered whether this date was appropriately calculated, taking into account the applicant's prior time served and the intention of the sentencing judge.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge correctly calculated the parole eligibility date. The court had to determine if the judge's intention to limit the applicant's actual time served to half of the sentence was accurately reflected in the imposed parole eligibility date. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the judge's consideration of the applicant's prior custody time was appropriately factored into the parole eligibility date.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge had made an error in not correctly accounting for the applicant's prior time served when setting the parole eligibility date. The court held that the judge intended the applicant not to serve more than half of his sentence. Therefore, the parole eligibility date should have been adjusted to reflect this intention, taking into account the prior time served. The court concluded that the correct parole eligibility date should be three years and eight and a half months from the commencement of the sentence, resulting in a date of 13 November 2013.

The Court of Appeal varied the sentence by setting aside the original parole eligibility date of 26 August 2014 and substituting a new parole eligibility date of 13 November 2013. The judges unanimously agreed on this adjustment, and the court issued its order accordingly.

R v Mamea

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established