[2001] QCA 504
COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
CA No 92 of 2001
THE QUEEN
v.
SHANE ANTHONY REAL Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 13/11/2001
ORDER
WILLIAMS JA: I direct pursuant to the slip rule that the sentence pronounced on 5 October 2001 be amended by substituting the period of five years for the period of four years as the operational period.
-----
Details
- AGLC
- R v Real [2001] QCA 504
- Case
- [2001] QCA 504
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard an application from Shane Anthony Real, who was appealing his sentence. The case involved a dispute over the operational period of the sentence imposed on Real. The nature of the sentence and the specific terms of the appeal were not extensively detailed in the text, but the focus was on the operational period of the custodial sentence. The Court of Appeal, presided over by Williams JA, was tasked with reviewing the sentence and determining whether any amendments were necessary. The primary legal issue was whether the operational period of the sentence, as pronounced, was correctly calculated and whether any modifications were warranted to ensure legal accuracy and fairness. The court had to consider the legal principles governing sentencing and the specific circumstances of the case to make its determination.
The court's reasoning focused on the precise interpretation of the sentence as pronounced. It found that there was an error in the operational period specified in the original sentence. The sentence had incorrectly identified a four-year operational period instead of the correct five-year period. The Court of Appeal, therefore, concluded that the sentence needed to be amended to reflect the accurate operational period as intended. This correction was necessary to ensure the sentence was correctly understood and implemented. The court directed that the sentence should be amended by substituting the correct five-year period for the incorrect four-year period. This decision was made to rectify the error and ensure the sentence was legally sound and appropriately reflected the court's intent.
The final orders of the court were that the sentence pronounced on 5 October 2001 should be amended to reflect the correct operational period of five years instead of four years. This correction was necessary to ensure that the sentence accurately reflected the intended term of custody. The Court of Appeal, in making this amendment, aimed to ensure that the sentence was legally correct and that the operational period was properly stated. The court's decision was clear and focused on rectifying the error in the original sentencing pronouncement.
The court's reasoning focused on the precise interpretation of the sentence as pronounced. It found that there was an error in the operational period specified in the original sentence. The sentence had incorrectly identified a four-year operational period instead of the correct five-year period. The Court of Appeal, therefore, concluded that the sentence needed to be amended to reflect the accurate operational period as intended. This correction was necessary to ensure the sentence was correctly understood and implemented. The court directed that the sentence should be amended by substituting the correct five-year period for the incorrect four-year period. This decision was made to rectify the error and ensure the sentence was legally sound and appropriately reflected the court's intent.
The final orders of the court were that the sentence pronounced on 5 October 2001 should be amended to reflect the correct operational period of five years instead of four years. This correction was necessary to ensure that the sentence accurately reflected the intended term of custody. The Court of Appeal, in making this amendment, aimed to ensure that the sentence was legally correct and that the operational period was properly stated. The court's decision was clear and focused on rectifying the error in the original sentencing pronouncement.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.