R v Steindl

[2001] QCA 315

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA

CA No 80 of 2001

THE QUEEN

THOMAS WILLIAM STEINDL Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/08/2001

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The Court intends to reserve the appeal against conviction and requires a transcript. As to the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, I am satisfied the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant has spent 142 days in custody and no greater penalty should have been imposed, than in respect of count 1, a fully suspended sentence of six months and in respect of count 2, a sentence of 18 months suspended forthwith.

At this stage, I would grant the application and allow the appeal and instead of the sentence imposed below in respect of count 1, stealing, I would order the applicant be sentenced to six months' imprisonment, fully suspended, with an operational period of two years and in respect of count 2, a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment, suspended forthwith, with an operational period of two years.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: I should add that we will publish our reasons for this later and I note that if the appeal against conviction is successful, the conviction and sentence will automatically go. So that is the order of the Court, thank you.
‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Steindl involved the appellant, Thomas William Steindl, who was challenging both his conviction and the severity of his sentence. The Court of Appeal in Brisbane heard the matter, with McMurdo P, Davies JA, and Thomas JA presiding. Steindl was convicted of stealing and another offence, and the appeal was against both his conviction and the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the conviction was sound and, if so, whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. In considering the sentence, the Court had to determine if it was manifestly excessive, especially given the appellant's time already spent in custody.

The Court found that while the conviction was to be reserved, the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive. The appellant had already spent 142 days in custody, and the Court deemed that a more appropriate sentence would be a fully suspended sentence of six months for the first count and an 18-month sentence, suspended forthwith, for the second count, both with operational periods of two years. The Court granted the appeal against the sentence and ordered the revised sentences to be imposed instead of the original ones. The reasons for the decision on the conviction would be published later.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established