R v Riley - [1999] QCA 128

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 128
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 23 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v. Riley]
THE QUEEN
v.
STEPHEN RILEY

(Applicant) Appellant
de Jersey CJ
Davies JA
Fryberg J

Judgment delivered 14 April 1999
Further order delivered 6 August 1999
Separate reasons for further order of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
RECOMMEND THAT THE APPELLANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR RELEASE ON
PAROLE ON 31 MARCH 2000.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Non-parole period - Queensland - Offender already serving imprisonment - Obligation to make parole recommendation - Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 157(3)
R v Doyle [1996] 1 Qd R 407 followed
R v Coss (1995) 78 A Crim R 551 considered
R v Pepper and Cornwell, CA Nos 366 and 367 of 1998,
2 March 1999, considered
R v Clemens, CA No 404 of 1997, 17 April 1998, referred to
R v Walton; ex parte Attorney-General of Queensland, CA
No 338 of 1997, 18 November 1997, referred to
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 157(3)
Corrective Services Act 1989 (Qld) s 166

CRIMINAL LAW - Appeal against sentence - Powers of appellate court - Taking account of events after sentencing
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593 referred to
R v Cornale [1993] 2 Qd R 294 referred to
R v M [1996] 1 Qd R 650 referred to

CRIMINAL LAW - Probation, parole, release on licence and remissions - Queensland - Eligibility for parole where offender already serving term of imprisonment - Commencement of sentence under appeal - When entitlement to remissions arises
McCasker v Queensland Corrective Services Commission
[1998] 2 Qd R 261 followed
R v Coss (1995) 78 A Crim R 551 referred to
R v Griinke [1992] 1 Qd R 196 referred to
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 204(6)
Corrective Services Regulation 1989 (Qld) ss 21, 22 and 28
Counsel: Mr B Devereaux for the applicant/appellant
Mr C Heaton for the respondent
Solicitors: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

Hearing Dates:

14 April 1999 12 May 1999
REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - de JERSEY CJ
Judgement delivered 14 April 1999
Further Order delivered 6 August 1999

I have had the advantage of reading the separate reasons for judgment prepared by Davies JA and Fryberg J. I agree that the considerations to which their Honours refer warrant this Court’s recommending eligibility for release on parole, in respect of the sentences under appeal, on 31 March 2000.
I agree with Davies JA as to the clarity of the ratio decidendi of R v Maniadis [1997] 1 QdR 593, 596-7, and also as to His Honour’s “second qualification”.
With relation to Fryberg J’s reservation about the Court’s power as to parole recommendations (para 22), I note that the Court of Appeal addressed the issue in R v Izatt (CA No 87 of 1999, 28…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Riley

Details

AGLC: R v Riley [1999] QCA 128
Case: [1999] QCA 128
Decision Date: 14/04/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Riley was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the respondent, Riley, appealed against the sentence imposed on him by the trial court. The nature of the dispute was the sentence handed down for Riley's criminal activities, specifically focusing on the non-parole period. Riley was already serving time for another offence when this sentence was imposed, which led to the argument that the trial court had not adequately considered the obligation to make a parole recommendation under the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 157(3).

The legal issues before the court were primarily centred around whether the trial court properly exercised its discretion in determining the non-parole period for Riley's new sentence. The court needed to assess whether the trial judge had considered the obligation to make a parole recommendation, and if not, whether this omission was significant enough to warrant a departure from the original sentence. The court also had to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate.

In its judgment, the court held that the trial judge did not explicitly address the obligation to make a parole recommendation, which was a critical component of the sentencing process under the specified statute. The court found that this omission was not trivial, as it affected the overall fairness and compliance with legislative requirements. However, the court concluded that the sentence itself was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and therefore did not warrant an alteration. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to legislative mandates in sentencing but found that in this instance, the sentence remained appropriate despite the procedural error.

As a result of the court's decision, Riley's appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence, including the non-parole period, was upheld. The court did not alter the sentence but underscored the necessity for trial judges to comply with statutory obligations when determining parole recommendations.

Orders