SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Rasmussen ex parte A-G (Qld) [2000] QCA 494 PARTIES: R
v
RASMUSSEN, Grant Peter
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 288 of 1999
MC No PA3742-64 of 1999
MC No PA3840-48 of 1999DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Miscellaneous Application – Criminal ORIGINATING COURT: Magistrates Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON: 1 December 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 6 October 2000 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Pincus JA, Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER: The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – INTERFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE – PARTICULAR MATTERS – OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES OF INTERFERENCE – Breach of intensive correction order imposed by the Court of Appeal – Magistrate remitted matter to Court of Appeal - whether Magistrate had power to deal with breach – whether the substituted or varied sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal becomes the sentence of the primary court for the purposes of Division 2 of Part 7 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Criminal Code, s 668E(3), s 668(F), s 669A
Offenders Probation & Parole Act 1959, s 10
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s 4, s 7, s 8, s 25, s 29, s 123, s 125, s 125(2), s 125(4)(a), s 125(4)(b), s 126, s 144
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991, s 16, s 29, s 34Borthwick v The Elderslie Steamship Company [1905] KB 516, referred to
Hancock v Prison Commissioners (1960) 1 QB 117, applied
Poulton v Welling Appeal No 473 of 1994, 5 May 1995, referred to
R v Cornale [1993] 2 QdR 294, referred to
S v Recorder of Manchester (1971) AC 481, considered
The Queen v Jerome & McMahon (1964) 1 QdR 603, appliedCOUNSEL: C Chowdhury for the respondent
D Meredith for the appellantSOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
McMURDO P: This matter first came before the Court of Appeal on 14 March 2000 as an Attorney-General's appeal against a sentence imposed upon Rasmussen in the Toowoomba Magistrates Court. On 24 March 2000, the Court allowed the appeal against sentence, set aside the sentence imposed in the Magistrates Court and instead sentenced Rasmussen to a term of imprisonment of one year to be served by way of an intensive correction order on the usual conditions set out in s 114 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 ("the Act") and with additional conditions involving restitution and residential requirements.
Rasmussen was brought before the Magistrates Court at Toowoomba on 2 June 2000 for breach of that intensive correction order and for other matters. As the intensive correction order was imposed by the Court of Appeal, the magistrate queried whether he had power…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Rasmussen ex parte A-G (Qld) 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
- [2000] QCA 494
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal, in examining the legal framework, considered the statutory provisions governing the authority of Magistrates in relation to breaches of orders imposed by the Court of Appeal. The Court held that the Magistrate did not have the power to deal with the breach as the matter was outside the Magistrate's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the substituted or varied sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal did not become the primary court's sentence for the purposes of Division 2 of Part 7 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. This conclusion was based on the statutory language and the separation of powers between the different courts.
In light of the Court of Appeal's findings, the matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law. The Court of Appeal's decision underscored the importance of respecting jurisdictional boundaries and adhering to statutory provisions when handling matters related to breaches of orders imposed by higher courts. The case serves as a reminder of the need for careful consideration of the powers and limitations of different courts in the criminal justice system.
Orders
Orders of the court
The matter is remitted to the Magistrates Court to be dealt with according to law.
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.