R v Paroz - [2012] QSC 427

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Paroz [2012] QSC 427

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

v

LESLIE ROLAND PAROZ

FILE NO:

434 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

30 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 November 2012

JUDGE:

Peter Lyons J

ORDER:

1.   The respondent is sentenced to serve the terms of imprisonment imposed on him by the orders made on the 19^th of August 2010.

2.   Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) the period of five days between the 22^nd of November 2012 and the 26^th November 2012 is to be taken as time served under the sentences the subject of this order.

3.   The parole release date is fixed as the 22^nd of April 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – SUPREME COURT – GENERALLY – where interlocutory injunction was granted on 7 April 2010 restraining the respondent from carrying out certain farming activities on properties named in that order – where on 4 June 2010 the respondent was found to be in breach of the injunction – where on 19 August 2010 the respondent was sentenced for contempt to periods of five and nine months imprisonment suspended immediately – where respondent was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and five counts of causing wilful damage to property on 8 March 2011 – whether the respondent should serve the whole of the term of suspended imprisonment
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT – BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF SUSPENSION AND SENTENCE FOLLOWING BREACH – where respondent was convicted of contempt of court on 19 August 2010 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment suspended immediately – where respondent was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and five counts of causing wilful damage to property on 8 March 2011 – whether the respondent should serve the whole of the term of suspended imprisonment – whether a parole release date should be fixed in respect of that imprisonment
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 146, s 147, s159A, s 160, s 160B, 160G
Paroz v Paroz [2010] QSC 41
R v Anderson [2010] QCA 158
R v Gray [2010] QCA 161
R v Norden [2009] 2 Qd R 455

COUNSEL:

J Robson for the Crown.

The respondent appeared in person.

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland).

The respondent appeared in person.

DG Bourke of Ernst and Young Law as a friend of the court.

HIS HONOUR: This matter has come before me as a result of a referral made by a District Court Judge under section 146 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) because the legislation under which this matter is to be determined may result in the making of an order which would require the respondent, Mr Leslie Roland Paroz, to serve time in prison. I invited him…

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 Paroz

Details

AGLC: R v Paroz [2012] QSC 427
Case: [2012] QSC 427
Decision Date: 30 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Paroz involved the respondent, Paroz, who was initially sentenced on 19 August 2010 to periods of five and nine months imprisonment suspended immediately for contempt of court. This stemmed from an interlocutory injunction granted on 7 April 2010, prohibiting certain farming activities on specified properties. Despite this, Paroz was found to be in breach of the injunction on 4 June 2010. Subsequently, on 8 March 2011, Paroz was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and five counts of causing wilful damage to property. The court was required to determine whether Paroz should serve the entire term of his suspended imprisonment and if a parole release date should be set.

The central legal issue was whether the respondent's subsequent convictions warranted the enforcement of the suspended sentences. The court had to consider the appropriate consequences of breaching the conditions of a suspended sentence. Given that Paroz had breached the conditions of his suspended sentence by committing further offences, the court needed to decide whether to enforce the previously suspended terms of imprisonment.

In reaching its decision, the court determined that the respondent's conduct justified the enforcement of the suspended sentences. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the subsequent convictions and the repeated breaches of court orders. Therefore, it ruled that Paroz should serve the entire term of his suspended imprisonment. Additionally, the court fixed a parole release date to provide clarity on the expected duration of the imprisonment. This decision ensured that the respondent faced appropriate consequences for his actions and reinforced the importance of adhering to court orders.

The final orders mandated that Paroz serve the terms of imprisonment initially imposed on him, with a specific period of five days to be considered as time served between 22 and 26 November 2012. The parole release date was set for 22 April 2013, providing a clear timeline for the enforcement of the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent is sentenced to serve the terms of imprisonment imposed on him by the orders made on the 19th of August 2010.

2. Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) the period of five days between the 22nd of November 2012 and the 26th November 2012 is to be taken as time served under the sentences the subject of this order.

3. The parole release date is fixed as the 22nd of April 2013.

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.

CITATION:	R v Paroz [2012] QSC 427
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN v LESLIE ROLAND PAROZ
FILE NO:	434 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	30 November 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 November 2012
JUDGE:	Peter Lyons J
ORDER:	1. The respondent is sentenced to serve the terms of imprisonment imposed on him by the orders made on the 19^th of August 2010. 2. Pursuant to s 159A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) the period of five days between the 22^nd of November 2012 and the 26^th November 2012 is to be taken as time served under the sentences the subject of this order. 3. The parole release date is fixed as the 22^nd of April 2013.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – CONTEMPT, ATTACHMENT AND SEQUESTRATION – POWER OF COURT TO PUNISH FOR CONTEMPT – SUPREME COURT – GENERALLY – where interlocutory injunction was granted on 7 April 2010 restraining the respondent from carrying out certain farming activities on properties named in that order – where on 4 June 2010 the respondent was found to be in breach of the injunction – where on 19 August 2010 the respondent was sentenced for contempt to periods of five and nine months imprisonment suspended immediately – where respondent was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and five counts of causing wilful damage to property on 8 March 2011 – whether the respondent should serve the whole of the term of suspended imprisonment CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – SENTENCING ORDERS – NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT – BREACH OF CONDITIONS OF SUSPENSION AND SENTENCE FOLLOWING BREACH – where respondent was convicted of contempt of court on 19 August 2010 and sentenced to a term of imprisonment suspended immediately – where respondent was convicted of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle and five counts of causing wilful damage to property on 8 March 2011 – whether the respondent should serve the whole of the term of suspended imprisonment – whether a parole release date should be fixed in respect of that imprisonment Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 146, s 147, s159A, s 160, s 160B, 160G Paroz v Paroz [2010] QSC 41 R v Anderson [2010] QCA 158 R v Gray [2010] QCA 161 R v Norden [2009] 2 Qd R 455
COUNSEL:	J Robson for the Crown. The respondent appeared in person.
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland). The respondent appeared in person. DG Bourke of Ernst and Young Law as a friend of the court.