SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Nuttall; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2011] QCA 120
PARTIES:
R
v
NUTTALL, Gordon Richard
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 8 of 2011
DC No 187 of 2010
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
7 June 2011
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
10 May 2011
JUDGES:
Muir, Fraser and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDERS:
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The sentences imposed, except for the perjury offences the subject of counts 11 to 15 on the indictment, be set aside.
3. The respondent be sentenced to seven year terms of imprisonment for each of the offences of official corruption.
4. Such sentences for corruption and perjury to be served concurrently with each other and cumulatively upon the sentences imposed on 17 July 2009.
5. A new parole eligibility date of 17 July 2015 is fixed, being a date twelve months earlier than the mid point of fourteen years from the commencement of the sentences imposed on 17 July 2009.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment for each of five counts of official corruption and two years imprisonment for each of five counts of perjury to be served cumulatively upon sentences of seven years imprisonment being imposed for each of 36 counts of corruption – where the respondent was a member of the Queensland Legislative Assembly – where the Attorney-General submitted that the sentence failed to adequately reflect the gravity of the offending and failed to sufficiently take into account general deterrence – where the Attorney-General submitted that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to mitigating factors and erred in applying the totality principle – where the respondent argued that the offences were not “within the worst category of cases” – where no sentencing guide was made available to the sentencing judge – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 87, s 121(1), s 124, s 442B, s 669A(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)(f)Einfeld v R (2010) 266 ALR 598; [2010] NSWCCA 87, considered
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295; [1994] HCA 49, considered
Hili v R (2010) 272 ALR 465; [2010] HCA 45, considered
Kenny v R [2010] NSWCCA 6, considered
Lacey v Attorney-General of Queensland (2011) 275 ALR 646; [2011] HCA 10, cited
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, cited
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, considered
R v Chong; ex parte A-G (Qld) (2008) 181 A Crim R 200; [2008] QCA 22, cited
R v Clements (1993)…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Nuttall; Ex parte Attorney-General and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2011] QCA 120
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and if the appeal against the sentence should be allowed. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence was excessively lenient given the nature and seriousness of the crimes committed. The court examined the principles of sentencing, the role of general deterrence, and the appropriate weight given to mitigating factors. The court also assessed whether the totality principle was correctly applied and whether the respondent's crimes warranted a more severe sentence.
The court found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the gravity of the crimes and the respondent's position of public trust. The court was critical of the sentencing judge for giving too much weight to mitigating factors and not adequately addressing the need for general deterrence. The appeal was allowed, and the sentences for the official corruption offences were set aside, except for the perjury offences of counts 11 to 15. The respondent was re-sentenced to seven years imprisonment for each of the official corruption offences, with these sentences to run concurrently with each other and cumulatively with the prior sentences. The court also fixed a new parole eligibility date of 17 July 2015, twelve months earlier than the midpoint of fourteen years from the commencement of the original sentences.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The sentences imposed, except for the perjury offences the subject of counts 11 to 15 on the indictment, be set aside.
3. The respondent be sentenced to seven year terms of imprisonment for each of the offences of official corruption.
4. Such sentences for corruption and perjury to be served concurrently with each other and cumulatively upon the sentences imposed on 17 July 2009.
5. A new parole eligibility date of 17 July 2015 is fixed, being a date twelve months earlier than the mid point of fourteen years from the commencement of the sentences imposed on 17 July 2009.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.