R v Randall

[2019] QCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Randall [2019] QCA 25

PARTIES:

R
v
RANDALL, Colin David
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 116 of 2018
SC No 909 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – [2018] QSC 100 (Davis J)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 15 February 2019
Date of Publication of Reasons: 22 February 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 February 2019

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Burns J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 15 February 2019

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant plead guilty to manslaughter – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment with parole eligibility after five years – where s 184(2) of the Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld) provides parole eligibility after serving half of the sentence – where the trial judge exercised discretion under s 160C(5) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) to postpone the applicant’s parole eligibility date by six months – whether the trial judge erred in postponing the statutorily mandated halfway parole eligibility date

R v Amato[2013] QCA 158, cited
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, applied
R v McDougall and Collas [2007] 2 Qd R 87; [2006] QCA 365, applied

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC, with T G Zwoerner, for the applicant
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. THE COURT:  Colin David Randall killed his ten-week-old son with a single powerful punch to the baby’s stomach.  Davis J sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of nine years and ordered that he be eligible to be considered for parole after serving five years.  Randall now applies for leave to appeal against that sentence, complaining that he should become eligible for parole after serving not five years of his term but six months less.  Consequently, this appeal is concerned with the narrow question whether Davis J was wrong (or, because this is an application for leave, arguably wrong) to set the parole eligibility date six months beyond the halfway point of the applicant’s nine year sentence.

2. The applicant is an educated man.  He has a science degree with a major in physics.  After gaining that degree he became a teacher.  He continued his studies and also earned a master’s degree in education administration.  He has taught at two prestigious private schools.  He then quit teaching and was accepted for training to become a Queensland policeman.  After being sworn into the Queensland Police Service, the applicant was posted to various South East Queensland stations.  At one of these he met the woman whom he would later marry, Debra Chambers.  They had a daughter who was born in 2010 and, on 14 April 2014, their son Kai was born.

3. The applicant…