R v Thiemann

The appellant, Thiemann, was convicted and sentenced by the District Court of Queensland on 21 May 2015 on various charges. He appealed against the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge. The primary legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were manifestly excessive or inadequate. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the sentences were to be served concurrently or cumulatively, as the sentencing judge's reasons did not clearly reflect the intention regarding the cumulative nature of the sentences.

The Court of Appeal found that there was an inconsistency between the sentencing judge's reasons and the orders recorded. The judge intended the sentence for one offence to be served cumulatively but did not indicate that the other sentences were to be served cumulatively. The court held that, absent any clear order or intention expressed by the sentencing judge, the sentences were to be served concurrently. The court further found that the sentence for one offence, which was count 1 upon the indictment, should be served cumulatively with any other term of imprisonment the offender was liable to serve. However, the other sentences should be served concurrently with the imprisonment for any other offence.

The appeal was allowed, and the sentences imposed on 21 May 2015 were quashed. The sentences were re-imposed in identical terms, with the exception that the sentences, apart from that for the offence which was count 1 upon the indictment, were to be served concurrently with any other imprisonment the offender was serving. The sentence for the offence which was count 1 was to be served cumulatively with any other term of imprisonment. The appellant's eligibility date for parole was set at 17 August 2015.