R v Marshall

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 020
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 474 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Marshall]

THE QUEEN

GLEN JOSEPH MARSHALL

Applicant

Fitzgerald P.
McPherson J.A.
Fryberg J.

Judgment delivered 4 February 1997
Orders made 7 February 1997

1. THE APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IS ALLOWED.
2. THE APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE SENTENCES ON THE FIRST AND
THIRD COUNTS ARE ALLOWED.

3. THE SENTENCE ON COUNT ONE IS SET ASIDE AND THE APPLICANT SENTENCED TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF FOUR YEARS; ON COUNT THREE THE APPLICANT IS SENTENCED TO A TERM OF IMPRISONMENT OF 18 MONTHS; THE SENTENCE ON COUNT TWO WILL NOT BE DISTURBED; ALL SENTENCES TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY.
4. THE TRIAL JUDGE’S DECLARATION THAT THE SENTENCES ARE TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM 27 SEPTEMBER 1996 WILL STAND, AS WILL THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ELIGIBILITY FOR PAROLE AFTER THE APPLICANT HAS SERVED 18 MONTHS OF THE SENTENCE.

Counsel:	Mrs K. McGinness for the applicant. Mr D Meredith for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	4 February 1997

ORDERS OF THE COURT
Delivered 7 February 1997

This matter was heard on 4 February 1997. The orders resulting from that hearing are as follows:

1.         The application for leave to appeal is allowed.
2.         The appeals in respect of the sentences on the first and third counts are allowed.
3.         The sentence on count one is set aside and the applicant sentenced to a term of imprisonment of four years; on count three the applicant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months; the sentence on count two will not be disturbed; all sentences to be served concurrently.
4.         The trial judge’s declaration that the sentences are to be effective from 27 September 1996 will stand, as will the recommendation for eligibility for parole after the applicant has served 18 months of the sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the applicant, Glen Joseph Marshall, was convicted on three counts and sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the sentences imposed on the first and third counts. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Fitzgerald P, McPherson JA, and Fryberg J, was required to determine whether the trial judge's sentences were appropriate and to consider whether any errors were made in the sentencing process that warranted a revision of the sentences. The applicant argued that the sentences were excessive and disproportionate, and that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider certain mitigating factors. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentences were within the appropriate range and that the trial judge had properly exercised their discretion.

The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing and proportionality, and examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Court found that the trial judge had erred in not adequately considering certain mitigating factors, and that the sentences imposed on the first and third counts were excessive. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeals in respect of the sentences on the first and third counts, and varied the sentences accordingly. The sentence on count one was set aside and replaced with a term of imprisonment of four years, while the sentence on count three was reduced to a term of imprisonment of 18 months. The sentence on count two was left undisturbed. The Court of Appeal also confirmed the trial judge's declaration that the sentences were to be effective from 27 September 1996, and the recommendation for eligibility for parole after the applicant had served 18 months of the sentence.

In summary, the Court of Appeal allowed the application for leave to appeal, allowed the appeals in respect of the sentences on the first and third counts, and varied the sentences to a term of imprisonment of four years on count one and 18 months on count three, to be served concurrently. The Court of Appeal also confirmed the trial judge's declaration and recommendation for parole eligibility. The Court of Appeal's decision provides guidance on the principles of sentencing and the importance of considering all relevant factors in the sentencing process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established