R v NQ

In this case, the applicant appealed against his sentence, arguing that the learned sentencing judge had erred in several respects. The applicant had pleaded guilty to manslaughter and improperly interfering with a corpse, and was sentenced to nine years and nine months imprisonment for the manslaughter and two years concurrent imprisonment for the corpse interference. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had not properly acknowledged his plea of guilty, that the judge had erred in considering an inadmissible statement, that the parity principle had not been correctly applied, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered these arguments in turn.

The court found that while the sentencing judge had not used the precise terms of s 13(3) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), he had directly referred to the applicant’s pleas of guilty and had considered them in determining the sentence. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in this respect. The court also found that there had been no error in the sentencing judge considering the statement of facts, as the applicant’s counsel had confirmed that it was not disputed and was the truth. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the parity principle, taking into account the co-offender’s cooperation with authorities. Finally, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the premeditated and violent nature of the crime, the applicant’s criminal history, and the fact that the applicant had cooperated with police.

The court dismissed the appeal against sentence, finding that there had been no error on the part of the sentencing judge. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.