R v Sheret

[2002] QCA 162

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
HELMAN J
MULLINS J

CA No 308 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ALAN MACKENZIE SHERET (applicant/appellant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/05/2002

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: This appeal was heard by a Court consisting of Justices Helman and Mullins and me.

The order is the application for extension of time to appeal against conviction is refused. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted. The appeal against sentence is allowed. The sentence of 12 months' imprisonment is varied by adding an order that the applicant serve the term of imprisonment as an intensive correction order, subject to the solicitors for the applicant within five business days notifying the Registrar of the Court of Appeal that an explanation of the intensive correction order has been given to the applicant as required by s 116 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and the applicant agrees to the intensive correction order being made and, upon that notification being received, the applicant must comply with the requirements set out in s 114(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and report within five business days of that notification being given by his solicitors to an authorised corrective services officer at Townsville.

I publish the separate reasons for Judgment of each member of the Court each concurring as to the order made.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sheret involved the applicant, Alan MacKenzie Sheret, appealing against his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal, consisting of McMurdo P, Helman J, and Mullins JCA. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The primary focus of the appeal was the applicant's contention that the trial judge erred in law in failing to consider and apply the principle of proportionality when imposing the sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant's appeal against the conviction and sentence should be allowed, and if so, what modifications should be made to the sentence. The court examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case. The court also considered the provisions of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) relating to intensive correction orders.

The court found that while the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was not successful, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was granted. The appeal against sentence was allowed, and the original sentence of 12 months' imprisonment was varied. The court determined that the applicant should serve the term as an intensive correction order, subject to certain conditions being met. This decision was based on the principle of proportionality and the need for the sentence to be appropriate to the offence committed. The court's ruling also incorporated the requirements set out in the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) for the imposition of an intensive correction order.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established