SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Vincent; ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 250 PARTIES: R
v
VINCENT, Barry Colin
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)FILE NO/S: CA No 85 of 2000
SC No 21 of 2000DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld) ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON: 23 June 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 19 June 2000 JUDGES: Pincus, Davies and Thomas JJA
Judgment of the CourtORDER: Appeal dismissed CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATION TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES - whether failure to impose an actual term of imprisonment manifestly inadequate in the circumstances – inconsistent submissions by Crown at first instance and on appeal
CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – RECOGNIZANCES, PROBATION AND OTHER NON-CUSTODIAL ORDERS – PROBATION ORDERS AND SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE – GENERALLY – whether suspended sentence may be imposed in conjunction with community service order – reasoning in Hughes does not extend to prevent the imposition of a suspended sentence in conjunction with a community service order – no prohibition implicit in Penalties and Sentences Act
Penalties and Sentences Act 1991 s 92, s 103(2)(b)
R v Applewaite and Jones (1996) 90 A Crim R 167, considered
R v Arana [2000] QCA 184, CA No 441 of 1999, 16 May 2000, considered
R v Craig David Hughes [2000] QCA 16, CA No 306 of 1999, 11 February 2000, considered
R v Hughes [1999] 1 Qd R 389, consideredR v M ex parte Attorney-General [1999] QCA 442, CA No 251 of 1999, 2 November 1999, considered
COUNSEL: N Weston for the appellant
C Chowdhury for the respondentSOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent
THE COURT: This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against sentences imposed for offences of production and possession of cannabis with a circumstance of aggravation. On the production count the respondent was sentenced to three months imprisonment wholly suspended for 12 months. On the possession count he was ordered to perform 80 hours community service, and a conviction was recorded.
The respondent is a 53 year old disability pensioner who lives in Stanthorpe with his wife. He has a long working history of work as a steel worker, roof plumber and panel beater. In more recent years he performed seasonal farm work but this diminished when his health started to deteriorate.
The circumstances of the offences are that police executed a warrant on his residence on 25 November 1999 and found 596 cannabis plants ranging from seedlings to plants said to be one metre tall. However, the numerous photographic exhibits fail to show any plants of more than half that size. The analyst's certificate reports the weight of "plants with roots removed and green plant material" as a mere 46.9…
Continue reading R v Vincent; ex parte
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Vincent; ex parte [2000] QCA 250
- Case
- [2000] QCA 250
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court found that the submissions made by the Crown at first instance and on appeal were inconsistent, and that there was no clear legal basis for the imposition of a suspended sentence in conjunction with a community service order. However, the court held that the reasoning in Hughes did not extend to prevent the imposition of a suspended sentence in conjunction with a community service order, and that there was no prohibition implicit in the Penalties and Sentences Act. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate, and dismissed the appeal.
The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly inadequate in the circumstances of the case, and that the Crown had failed to demonstrate that the sentence was unjust or inappropriate. The court also found that the imposition of a suspended sentence in conjunction with a community service order was not prohibited by the Penalties and Sentences Act, and that the submissions made by the Crown at first instance and on appeal were inconsistent. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the original sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal 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.