R v Quinn

[2003] QCA 336

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Quinn [2003] QCA 336
PARTIES:	R v QUINN, Carl Trevor
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 8 of 2003 DC No 2585 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	4 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 August 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir and Holmes JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where armed robbery of credit union – where applicant on parole at time of offence – where applicant had criminal history involving similar offences – where applicant had heroin addiction – whether sentence manifestly excessive
R v Irving [2001] QCA 472; CA No 199 of 2001, 2 November 2001, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES J: This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of nine years' imprisonment for armed robbery in company with violence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

The applicant pleaded guilty to the count on the 13th of December 2002. The sentence was ordered, as section 156A of the Penalties and Sentences Act required, to be served cumulatively upon an existing sentence for armed robbery.

That was a sentence of six years' and six months' imprisonment of which the applicant had served a period, taking into account nine months prior to his sentencing and 11 months on parole in the community, of about five years and four months.

At the time of the sentence which is under consideration by this Court, he had some 13 months remaining on the prior sentence.

In respect of the sentence presently being considered, 578 the applicant serve four and a half years' imprisonment from the expiration of the deprivation of liberty for all previous convictions. In fact, it is only the single armed robbery conviction which is of relevance.

days presentence custody was declared as time already
served. This sentence was reopened on the 30th of May
2003 because the learned sentencing Judge had omitted to
make a fresh recommendation for parole and also because
there was some question about a cumulative sentence in
relation to a drug offence which, it seems clear, was in
fact not in issue. That time must have already been
served.

Five hundred and seventy-eight days presentence custody remains declared as time already served under that sentence and it is clear that the applicant is entitled to credit for it.

To give some detail as to the offence in question before this Court, on the…