R v Murray

Murray appealed against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that a declaration made by the sentencing judge should not have been made. Murray had pleaded guilty to six indictable offences and two summary counts, including aggravated stalking, assault occasioning bodily harm, stealing, threatening to enter premises with intent to intimidate, and doing grievous bodily harm with intent. The sentencing judge imposed a concurrent sentence of eight years imprisonment and made a declaration pursuant to section 161B(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Murray argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the declaration should not have been made because the sentencing judge failed to give reasons for making it.

The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the declaration should have been made. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive because it was within the sentencing range for the offences committed. The court also found that the declaration should not have been made because the sentencing judge failed to give reasons for making it, which was a requirement under the Act. The court noted that the declaration had the effect of increasing the penalties for any future offences that Murray might commit, which was a significant consequence that required proper justification. The court concluded that the failure to give reasons for the declaration was a substantial error that affected the fairness of the sentencing process.