R v Maxfield

[2000] QCA 320

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Maxfield [2000] QCA 320

PARTIES:

R
v
MAXFIELD, Larry William
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 19 of 2000
DC No 786 of 1999

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 May 2000

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Davies JA and Fryberg J
Joint reasons for judgment of Davies JA and Fryberg J; separate reasons of McMurdo P dissenting in part.

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.  Appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – judgment and punishment – sentence – factors to be taken into account – miscellaneous matters – remission, parole and prisoner classification – effect of parole recommendation – relevance of factors taken into account at time of sentencing.

Corrective Services Act 1988, (Qld) s 139(1), s 166, s 166(1)(d)
Corrective Services Amendment Regulation 1991, (Qld) s 13
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, (Qld) s 13, s 157
Weapons Act 1990, (Qld)

R v Corrigan [1994] 2 Qd R 415, considered
R v Main [1999] QCA 327; CA 226 of 1999, 17 August 1999, referred
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, followed
R v Mather [1999] QCA 226; CA No 76 of 1999; 17 June 1999, considered
R v Moodie [1999] QCA 125; CA 439 of 1998, 14 April 1999, referred
R v Moss [1999] QCA 426; CA 270 of 1999, 8 October 1999, referred
R v Reischl [2000] QCA 215; CA 81 of 2000, 1 June 2000, referred
Williams v Queensland Community Corrections Board [2000] QCA 75; CA 6237 of 1999, 17 March 2000, considered

COUNSEL:

M C Chowdhury for the applicant/appellant
N Weston for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. McMURDO P:  I have had the benefit of reading the joint reasons for judgment of Davies JA and Fryberg J who have set out the relevant facts and issues.

1. The question for determination is the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the applicant in the light of evidence before this court which was not before the primary court. That evidence, which is not contested by the respondent, is first that it is likely that the applicant will be classified as a high security prisoner for a minimum period of two years because of his two previous convictions in New South Wales for escaping from lawful custody and second that current Ministerial Guidelines suggest that ordinarily an applicant must be in the low security classification to be eligible for parole. As a result the applicant’s current prospects of earlier than usual release on parole[1] do not seem promising.

   [1]See s 166(1)(d) Corrective Services Act 1988.

1. It is appropriate that this court receive that evidence: R v Maniadis (1997) 1 Qd R 593.

1. At sentence the applicant’s counsel submitted that a partially suspended sentence was more appropriate than…