R v Russell

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Russell [2004] QCA 315

PARTIES:

R
v
RUSSELL, Glenn Terrance
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 114 of 2004
DC No 519 of 2003
DC No 71 of 2004
DC No 149 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

31 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2004

JUDGES:

McPherson JA, Jerrard JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to numerous offences including one count of burglary, seven counts of unlawfully using a motor vehicle and four counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the burglary and lesser sentences of imprisonment for the other offences – where a recommendation was made for eligibility for post-prison community based release after 18 months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given that the applicant had little chance of getting parole

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES J: I concur with the learned sentencing Judge in thinking that it would not be a good thing for the applicant to be released straight into the community without supervision after the length of this sentence, and it is important that the parole recommendation was made by his Honour with the knowledge of the applicant's criminal history in New South Wales and Queensland. No doubt the Parole Board will have regard to what was said in The Queen v. Maxfield at (2002)
1 Queensland Reports 417 in the majority judgment as to how parole recommendations ought to be treated. Those are the only comments I wish to make.

McPHERSON JA: Well, I agree with what's been said.

JERRARD JA: I'd agree with those too. What that means is that the Parole Board should take some notice of what the Judge recommended.

...

McPHERSON JA: The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Russell involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to a series of offences. These included one count of burglary, seven counts of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, and four counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle. The applicant was sentenced to a total of four years imprisonment for the burglary and lesser sentences for the other offences. The court made a recommendation for the applicant to be eligible for post-prison community-based release after serving 18 months of the sentence. The applicant challenged the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, considering the low likelihood of parole.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the circumstances of the offender and the potential for parole. The court had to weigh the severity of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the principles of justice and deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence. Additionally, the court needed to consider the recommendation for post-prison community-based release and its impact on the overall sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, noting the applicant's repeated offending behaviour. The court also considered the principles of sentencing, including deterrence, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community. After careful consideration of these factors, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and provided an appropriate balance between punishment and the possibility of rehabilitation. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The sentence imposed on the applicant remained unchanged, with eligibility for post-prison community-based release after serving 18 months of the sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Russell [2004] QCA 315
PARTIES:	R v RUSSELL, Glenn Terrance (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 114 of 2004 DC No 519 of 2003 DC No 71 of 2004 DC No 149 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	31 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 August 2004
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Jerrard JA and Holmes J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to numerous offences including one count of burglary, seven counts of unlawfully using a motor vehicle and four counts of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the burglary and lesser sentences of imprisonment for the other offences – where a recommendation was made for eligibility for post-prison community based release after 18 months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given that the applicant had little chance of getting parole
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent