R v Stone - [2018] QDC 160

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stone [2018] QDC 160

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN
(applicant)

v

TREVOR CHARLES STONE
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Brisbane No. 2146/07

Cairns No. 315A/97

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Application to review indefinite sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

20 September 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 August 2018

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

The indefinite sentences imposed by his Honour Judge White on 16 November 1998 in respect of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 are discharged;1.

In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in respect of each of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentence the respondent was serving on 16 November 1998.2.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – review of indefinite sentence – where the respondent has been convicted of four counts of rape and sentenced to indefinite sentences for each – whether the respondent is still a serious danger to the community – imposition of an appropriate finite sentence

COUNSEL:

D Balic for the applicant

D Caruana for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant

Russo Lawyers for the respondent

This is an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 171(1)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (“the Act”) requiring a review of indefinite sentences imposed on the respondent in the District Court at Cairns on 16 November 1998.

Indefinite sentences were imposed for four offences of rape. A period of 14 years was nominated as the term of imprisonment the court would have imposed on each count had it not imposed indefinite sentences ("the nominal sentence”).[1] The respondent was also sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment for other offences ranging from three years to eight years. All terms of imprisonment were ordered to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentence then being served by the respondent.
[1]Section 163(2) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

The sentencing court is required to conduct the first review of an indefinite sentence within six months after the offender has served 50 per cent of the nominal sentence.[2]
[2]Section 171(1)(a)(i).

That first review was held on 22 November 2010 and 9 December 2010 before his Honour Judge O’Brien DCJA (as his Honour then was). The decision on that review was delivered on 25 March 2011.[3] His Honour then conducted a second review in November 2013. I conducted the third review in November 2015.[4] At each review it was concluded that the respondent still constituted a serious danger to the community and that finite sentences were not of sufficient protective effect.
[3]The respondent was serving cumulative sentences hence the delayed review date.
[4]See R v Stone [2015] QDC 310 (I intend to borrow heavily from that judgment when detailing historical matters of relevance in this judgment).

Nature of respondent’s criminal history

In his decision on the first…

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 Stone

Details

AGLC: R v Stone [2018] QDC 160
Case: [2018] QDC 160
Decision Date: 20 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Stone, appealed against his indefinite sentences imposed by his Honour Judge White on 16 November 1998 for four counts of rape. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, where the Court was asked to consider whether Stone remained a serious danger to the community, justifying the indefinite sentences. The court had to determine if the original sentences were appropriate and whether a finite sentence would be more suitable given the circumstances.

The legal issues before the court included the validity of the indefinite sentences under the relevant legislation and whether they were proportionate to the crimes committed. The court also had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether an indefinite sentence was necessary to protect the community. Additionally, the court examined whether a finite sentence could adequately address the risk posed by Stone while providing a clear pathway for his rehabilitation.

The court found that the indefinite sentences were not appropriate, considering the nature of the crimes and the circumstances of the case. It held that an indefinite sentence was not necessary to protect the community, as the respondent's risk level could be managed with a finite sentence. The court reasoned that a finite sentence would allow for regular reviews and the possibility of early release if the respondent's risk level decreased. Consequently, the court discharged the indefinite sentences and imposed concurrent finite sentences of 18 years for each count, to be served cumulatively with the sentence Stone was already serving.

The final orders of the court were that the indefinite sentences imposed on 16 November 1998 were discharged, and in their place, Stone was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment for each of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8. These sentences were to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively with the sentence Stone was serving on 16 November 1998. This decision ensured that Stone's punishment was proportionate to his crimes while allowing for the possibility of his rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

The indefinite sentences imposed by his Honour Judge White on 16 November 1998 in respect of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 are discharged;1.

In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in respect of each of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentence the respondent was serving on 16 November 1998.2.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Stone [2018] QDC 160
PARTIES:	THE QUEEN (applicant) v TREVOR CHARLES STONE (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Brisbane No. 2146/07 Cairns No. 315A/97
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Application to review indefinite sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	20 September 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 August 2018
JUDGE:	Farr SC DCJ
ORDER:	The indefinite sentences imposed by his Honour Judge White on 16 November 1998 in respect of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 are discharged;1. In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to 18 years imprisonment in respect of each of Counts 2, 4, 6, and 8 to be served concurrently with each other but cumulatively upon the sentence the respondent was serving on 16 November 1998.2.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – review of indefinite sentence – where the respondent has been convicted of four counts of rape and sentenced to indefinite sentences for each – whether the respondent is still a serious danger to the community – imposition of an appropriate finite sentence
COUNSEL:	D Balic for the applicant D Caruana for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant Russo Lawyers for the respondent