R v Morgan and Attorney-General of Queensland

COURT OF APPEAL

[1996] QCA 394

MOYNIHAN J
MACKENZIE J

CULLINANE J

CA No 517 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

BRUCE WAYNE STEPHEN MORGAN	Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND	Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 04/10/96
041096 T6/JB M/T COA242/96
MACKENZIE J: In my opinion the following orders should be made.
The Attorney-General's appeal is allowed.

The order made in the District Court, Southport, in so far as it relates to the total suspension of the three year term forthwith with an operative period of four years, be deleted. It is recommended that the respondent be considered for release on parole after a period of 12 months.

I would also order that a warrant to apprehend the respondent be issued, such warrant to lie in the Registry for an appropriate period after which time it should be released for execution.

MOYNIHAN J: I agree.

CULLINANE J: I agree.

MOYNIHAN J: What do you want to do about the warrant?
MRS RICHARDS: Your Honour, I would ask for 10 days simply because Mr Morgan lives in New South Wales and we can only contact him through his sister, so we will have to write to his sister and ask her to get him to contact us. We have only got a PO box number.
MOYNIHAN J: What do you say, Mrs Clare?
mrs CLARE: I have no submission on that.
MACKENZIE J: How long did you ask for?
MRS RICHARDS: 10 days - the 14th.

MACKENZIE J: Ten days, so Tuesday, the 14th. I would propose an order that the warrant lie in the Registry until 4 p.m. on 14 October 1996 after which time it should be released for execution.

041096 T6/JB M/T COA242/96

MOYNIHAN J: The order will be as indicated by Justice

Mackenzie.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Bruce Wayne Stephen Morgan, was found guilty of manslaughter in the Southport District Court and sentenced to a three-year prison term. The Attorney-General of Queensland sought an appeal against the sentence. The case was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, with the appeal challenging the sentence handed down by the District Court. The appeal specifically targeted the sentencing decision, particularly the total suspension of the three-year term, which was suspended for a period of four years. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and that the respondent should be considered for release on parole after a period of 12 months.

The Court of Appeal agreed with the Attorney-General, ruling that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the order for the total suspension of the three-year term should be deleted. The Court recommended that the respondent be considered for release on parole after a period of 12 months, acknowledging the need for a more suitable sentence. The Court also ordered that a warrant to apprehend the respondent be issued, which should lie in the Registry for an appropriate period before being released for execution. The Court granted the respondent's legal representatives' request for a 10-day delay in the execution of the warrant to allow for appropriate contact with the respondent.

The Court of Appeal allowed the Attorney-General's appeal and recommended that the respondent be considered for release on parole after 12 months. A warrant to apprehend the respondent was issued, with the execution of the warrant to be delayed by 10 days to allow for proper communication with the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established