R v Rasmussen ex parte A-G (Qld)

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read

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 1999
DIVISION: 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 made
ORDER: 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 34

Borthwick 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, applied

COUNSEL: C Chowdhury for the respondent
D Meredith for the appellant
SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
  1. 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.

  1. 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2000] QCA 494
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the parties involved were the respondent, Rasmussen, and the Attorney-General for Queensland, acting on behalf of the respondent. The dispute centred on the breach of an intensive correction order that had been imposed by the Court of Appeal. The matter was remitted to the Magistrates Court by the Court of Appeal, which led to a question regarding the Magistrate's authority to address the breach. Specifically, the legal issues to be resolved were whether the Magistrate had the power to handle the breach and if the sentence substituted or varied by the Court of Appeal became the primary court's sentence under Division 2 of Part 7 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

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.