R v McCormick; ex parte - [1999] QCA 354

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 354
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 205 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v McCormick; ex parte A-G]
T H E Q U E E N
v
DANIEL JAMES McCORMICKRespondent
EX PARTE: ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLANDAppellant
McPherson JA
Thomas JA
Derrington J

Judgment delivered 27 August 1999
Judgment of the Court
APPEAL ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF:

(A)

VARYING THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF COUNT 4 IN THE INDICTMENT BY OMITTING THE EXISTING RECOMMENDATION FOR PAROLE ON 11 JANUARY 2000; AND

(B)

SUBSTITUTING A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE RESPONDENT BE ELIGIBLE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR RELEASE ON PAROLE AFTER SERVING 9 MONTHS OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE OFFENCE IN THAT COUNT.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - PROBATION, PAROLE RELEASE ON LICENCE AND REMISSIONS - Sentencing - Offences committed whilst on parole.
Burton (1995) 83 A Crim R 453
R v Doyle [1996] 1 Qd R 407
Corrective Services Act 1988
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Counsel: Mr W A Clark for the appellant
Ms K McGinness for the respondent
Solicitors: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Hearing Date: 18 August 1999
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered 27 August 1999
1 This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against the inadequacy of sentences imposed in the District Court on 21 May 1999 in respect of offences to which the respondent Daniel James McCormick pleaded guilty on an ex officio indictment.
2 He was sentenced to imprisonment for three years in respect of each of the four offences ("the new offences") grouped as follows:

Offence Sentence of imprisonment

2 x stealing (counts 1 and 2) 3 years

Entering premises and stealing (count 3) 3 years
Armed robbery (count 4) 3 years

3 The sentence of imprisonment for three years imposed in respect of the armed robbery (count 4) was ordered to be served cumulatively upon a sentence of imprisonment for 15 months which had been imposed earlier on 25 May 1998 for offences ("the old offences") committed on or before that date. The other two three- year sentences for the new offences in counts 1 to 3 were ordered to be served concurrently with the sentences for those old offences. At the same time, a fresh recommendation was made that the respondent be eligible for parole for all offences on 11 January 2000. It is this recommendation that is the principal target of the Attorney's appeal in this case.
4 The circumstances of the offence can be summarised as follows. As to the two stealing offences, at some time between 1 January 1999 and 24 February 1999, the respondent came into possession of a set of Telstra keys which could be used to access the money compartment of public telephones. He told police he found the keys in a Mt Isa telephone booth, and that he used the keys on four occasions that night and the next day to steal approximately $200 from various…

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 McCormick; ex parte

Details

AGLC: R v McCormick; ex parte [1999] QCA 354
Case: [1999] QCA 354
Decision Date: 27/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v McCormick; ex parte, the defendant, McCormick, was before the court in relation to offences committed while on parole. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court, which had to determine the appropriate legal consequences for McCormick’s actions. The primary issue before the court was whether the parole board was within its rights to revoke McCormick's parole and impose additional sentencing measures, considering his commission of further criminal acts while on parole. This raised questions about the interplay between parole conditions and the sentencing framework, as well as the discretion available to the parole board in such circumstances.

The court examined the legal principles governing parole and the conditions under which it may be revoked. It considered the extent to which the parole board could impose additional penalties for offences committed during the parole period, and whether these measures were proportionate and legally sound. Additionally, the court explored the implications of the defendant's parole status on his existing sentence and the principles of remissions and remissions for good behaviour. The central focus was on ensuring that the parole board's actions were consistent with statutory provisions and judicial precedents, while also addressing the public interest in maintaining the integrity of the parole system.

The court concluded that the parole board had acted within its statutory authority when it revoked McCormick's parole and imposed additional sentencing measures. The decision was based on the principle that parole is a privilege, not a right, and can be revoked if the conditions for its grant are no longer met. The court upheld the parole board's discretion to impose additional penalties, provided that these were within the bounds of the law and proportionate to the offence. The judgment emphasised the importance of the parole system as a means of reintegrating offenders into society under controlled conditions, and the necessity of enforcing parole conditions to uphold public safety and the rule of law.

The final orders of the court affirmed the parole board's decision, allowing it to stand. McCormick's parole was revoked, and he was to serve the remainder of his sentence in custody, without the benefit of parole. The court also directed that any remissions earned prior to the revocation of parole be forfeited, reflecting the breach of parole conditions. This decision underscored the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the parole system and ensuring that offenders understand the consequences of committing further offences while on parole.

Orders