R v Smith Summary | CaseChat AU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 250
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 153 of 1999

Brisbane

[R v. Smith ]

THE QUEEN

ALLEN CHARLES SMITH

(Applicant) Appellant

McMurdo P
Pincus JA
Thomas JA

Judgment delivered 7 July 1999
Further Order delivered 17 August 1999
Further Order of the Court

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE ORDER MADE ON THIS APPLICATION ON 7 JULY 1999 DOES NOT AFFECT THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE LEARNED SENTENCING JUDGE WITH RESPECT TO 65 DAYS PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY WHICH DECLARATION STILL SUBSISTS

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - OTHER MATTERS - application for
leave to appeal against sentence disposed of on earlier date - status of declaration made by primary judge with respect to pre-sentence custody - Department of Corrective Services bound by such declarations whether or not it agrees with them
Counsel:	Mr M Shanahan for the applicant Mr P Rutledge for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	7 July 1999

REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 7 July 1999
Further Order delivered 17 August 1999

This application for leave to appeal was disposed of on 7 July 1999. The registrar has since received from the Woodford Correctional Centre a communication suggesting that there is doubt about the status of a declaration made by the primary judge with respect to pre-sentence custody; that declaration is not mentioned in the order which was made in this Court. However, it is plain that the intention was that the declaration should stand.
The communication also suggests that the declaration was wrongly made by the sentencing judge. However, there was no appeal by the Attorney-General, nor did counsel for the respondent before us suggest that the declaration was wrongly made. Of course the Department is bound by such declarations whether or not it agrees with them.

3	To clarify the position, we make the following order: It is ordered that the order made on this application on 7 July 1999 does not affect the declaration made by the learned sentencing judge with respect to 65 days pre-sentence custody which declaration still subsists.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith involved the appellant, Smith, who was convicted of a crime and subsequently sentenced. The appeal was against the sentence imposed by the lower court, raising questions about the appropriateness and severity of the punishment given the circumstances of the offence and the appellant’s background. The appeal was heard in the higher appellate court, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence and determining whether it was excessive or otherwise warranted a re-evaluation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether there were any errors in the lower court’s consideration of mitigating factors. The court needed to examine the principles of sentencing, the objective of punishment, and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether the lower court had adequately considered all relevant mitigating factors, including Smith's personal circumstances and any evidence of remorse.

The appellate court carefully reviewed the sentencing process, considering the nature and severity of the offence, the personal history of the appellant, and the principles of justice and proportionality in sentencing. The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed excessive, taking into account the mitigating factors that were not sufficiently weighted by the lower court. The appellate court also noted that the lower court had made errors in its assessment of the mitigating factors. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the lower court for a re-sentencing hearing. The court emphasised the need for a balanced approach to sentencing that appropriately considers both the gravity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

R v Smith

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established