R v Stone - [2015] QDC 310

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stone [2015] QDC 310

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 Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

2 November 2015 and 12 November 2015

JUDGE:

Farr SC DCJ

ORDER:

Application dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - Review of indefinite sentence – Where the defendant / respondent has been convicted, inter alia, of four counts of rape and sentenced to indefinite sentences for each – Whether the defendant / respondent is still a serious danger to the community.

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 163, 171, 173

Buckley v R (2006) 80 ALJR 605
R v Garland [2014] QCA 3
R v Stone [2011] QDC (unreported)

COUNSEL:

D A Holliday for the applicant.

R M O’Gorman 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 1988.

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 cumulative on 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% of the nominal sentence.[2] 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.
[2]Section 171(1)(a)(i).
[3]The respondent was serving cumulative sentences hence the delayed review date.

Nature of respondent’s criminal history

In his decision on the first review, O’Brien DCJA relevantly summarised the respondent’s offending history.[4] It is sufficient for present purposes to repeat that summation here:

“[3] The respondent presented as a man with a lengthy and serious criminal history. On 25 August 1981 he had been convicted in the Supreme Court at Townsville of a series of offences including rape, sodomy and indecent assault committed against a 57 year old woman. The circumstances of those offences involved the abduction of the complainant as she waited in a motor vehicle outside a bank in Tully. The respondent had driven the…

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 [2015] QDC 310
Case: [2015] QDC 310
Decision Date: 9 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Stone, the respondent, a convicted offender, sought judicial review of his indefinite sentence. The respondent had been found guilty of four counts of rape and was sentenced to an indefinite term for each offence. The central issue before the court was whether the respondent continued to pose a serious danger to the community, justifying his indefinite detention. The court was required to assess the current risk posed by the respondent and whether the continued detention was necessary for public safety.

The court examined the evidence presented regarding the respondent's risk of reoffending and considered expert psychological assessments. It was established that the respondent had made significant progress in his rehabilitation while in custody, but the court also noted his history of violent behaviour and the severity of his previous crimes. The court held that despite the respondent's progress, the nature of his offences and his past conduct indicated that he remained a serious danger to the community. The court found that the indefinite sentence was warranted to protect the public and ensure the respondent could not reoffend.

As a result, the court dismissed the respondent's application for judicial review of his sentence. The decision to maintain the indefinite sentence was upheld, reflecting the court's determination that the respondent continued to pose a significant risk to society. The court's decision was grounded in the need to balance the respondent's rehabilitation progress against the serious nature of his past crimes and the ongoing risk he presented.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.

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 [2015] QDC 310
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 Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	2 November 2015 and 12 November 2015
JUDGE:	Farr SC DCJ
ORDER:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE - Review of indefinite sentence – Where the defendant / respondent has been convicted, inter alia, of four counts of rape and sentenced to indefinite sentences for each – Whether the defendant / respondent is still a serious danger to the community. Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 163, 171, 173 Buckley v R (2006) 80 ALJR 605 R v Garland [2014] QCA 3 R v Stone [2011] QDC (unreported)
COUNSEL:	D A Holliday for the applicant. R M O’Gorman for the respondent.
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions for the applicant. Russo Lawyers for the respondent.