R v Thaidy (2)

In the case of the Crown versus Thaidy, the appellant was convicted by a judge alone in the Supreme Court of Queensland of aggravated break enter and steal, use a motor vehicle as an offensive weapon, drive in a manner dangerous, drive an unregistered and uninsured vehicle, and drive while never licensed to do so. The appeal was against sentence only. The appellant, who was on parole at the time of the offence, was sentenced to an overall effective sentence of twelve years, two months, with a non-parole period of four years, nine months. The appeal was dismissed.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the primary judge had failed to have regard to all relevant matters in imposing sentence. The appellant submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive because it was appropriate to impose a head sentence of less than seven years and that the primary judge had failed to have proper regard to the substantial discount that should have been applied to the head sentence because of the appellant's guilty plea. The Crown submitted that the sentence was not manifestly excessive because it was not appropriate to have a head sentence of less than seven years and that the primary judge had properly considered the appellant's guilty plea.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive because it was not appropriate to have a head sentence of less than seven years. The court held that the primary judge had properly considered the appellant's guilty plea and that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances. The court held that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence imposed by the primary judge. The effective sentence imposed consists of a non-parole period of four years, nine months and a head sentence of seven years, three months.