SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Real [2001] QCA 422 PARTIES: R
v
REAL, Shane AnthonyFILE NO/S: CA No 92 of 2001
DC No 65 of 2000DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Application ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Gympie DELIVERED ON: 5 October 2001 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 24 September 2001 JUDGES: Williams JA, Jones and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders madeORDER: (1) Grant the application and allow the appeal;
(2) Set aside the sentence for the offence of torture and in lieu thereof, sentence the appellant to imprisonment for a period of five years and order that terms of imprisonment for torture and robbery be suspended after the appellant has served two years, with an operational period of four years;
(3) The other orders at first instance on sentence to stand.
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON – torture - applicant pleaded guilty to offences of torture and robbery at trial - applicant acted in company with another in respect of offence of torture
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MISCELLANEOUS POWERS OF COURTS AND JUDGES – sentencing – where applicant sentenced to six years imprisonment for torture and four years for robbery, to be served concurrently – where applicant appeals against sentence in respect of offence of torture only – whether parity in sentencing between co-accuseds – where applicant concerned about release for parole due to amendment to Penalties and Sentences Act 1992
Criminal Code s 320A
Penalties and Sentences Act (Qld) 1992R v Ambrose 5 of 1995, 21 March 1995 considered
R v B; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 110; CA No 379 of 1999, 4 April 2000 considered
R v Burns [2000] QCA 201, CA No 399 of 1999, 30 May 2000 consideredCOUNSEL:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
BG Campbell for the RespondentSOLICITORS:
The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
WILLIAMS JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment prepared by Jones J and with the orders he proposes.
JONES J: The applicant, who is now 27 years old, pleaded guilty in the District Court at Gympie to two offences which occurred on 22 May 2000 namely, that he tortured and that he robbed one Keith Stanley Frost. The complainant was then 19 years of age. The applicant at the time of these offences acted in company with another person named Geoffrey Thomas Dack.
The applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment in respect of the offence of torture and four years in respect of the offence of robbery. The terms of imprisonment were to be served concurrently and a recommendation was made that he be considered for release on parole after serving two years. The term of the sentence for robbery was not challenged. A declaration was also made that he had spent a total…
Continue reading R v Real
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Real [2001] QCA 422
- Case
- [2001] QCA 422
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to consider the principles of parity in sentencing between co-accused individuals and the potential for the applicant to be released on parole due to amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The court found that there was a disparity in sentencing between the applicant and the co-accused, as the co-accused had received a lesser sentence for the same offence. The court also found that the applicant's concerns about potential release on parole were valid, given the recent amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. As a result, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence for the offence of torture. In lieu thereof, the court sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a period of five years, with the terms of imprisonment for torture and robbery to be suspended after the applicant had served two years, with an operational period of four years.
The court's decision was based on the principles of parity in sentencing and the potential for the applicant to be released on parole due to recent amendments to the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The court found that the original sentence for the offence of torture was disproportionate to the co-accused's sentence and that the applicant's concerns about potential release on parole were valid. The court granted the application and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original sentence for the offence of torture and imposing a new sentence of imprisonment for a period of five years, with the terms of imprisonment for torture and robbery to be suspended after the applicant had served two years, with an operational period of four years. The other orders at first instance on sentence were to stand.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Grant the application and allow the appeal;
(2) Set aside the sentence for the offence of torture and in lieu thereof, sentence the appellant to imprisonment for a period of five years and order that terms of imprisonment for torture and robbery be suspended after the appellant has served two years, with an operational period of four years;
(3) The other orders at first instance on sentence to stand.
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.