R v Wano; Ex parte

Case [2018] QCA 117

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wano; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 117

PARTIES:

R
v
WANO, Xzaveah Elijah
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 304 of 2017
DC No 775 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Sentence: 30 November 2017 (Morzone QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

12 June 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and North and Henry JJ

ORDERS:

Appeal allowed.1.   

The sentences imposed below are varied to the following extent:2.   

on count 2 (rape) the sentence of three years imprisonment is set aside and instead a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment is imposed;   (a)  

the order partly suspending the terms of imprisonment is set aside and instead a parole eligibility date is set at 24 July 2018.(b)  

A warrant will issue for the arrest of the respondent.3.   

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the Attorney-General (Qld) appeals against sentence – where the respondent pleaded guilty to burglary and stealing, rape, sexual assault in company and attempted burglary in the night in company – where the respondent was given head sentences of three years imprisonment for burglary and stealing, rape and sexual assault in company and 18 months imprisonment for attempted burglary in the night in company, suspended after 323 days which was declared as time served in presentence custody – where the applicant was entitled to credit pursuant to AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111 – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C(3)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(1)(e), s 9(2)(f), s 9(3)(h), s 15(1), s 160C, s 160D

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Kentwell v The Queen (2015) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37, cited
R v Billy[1997] QCA 290, cited
R v Forrester (2008) 180 A Crim R 510; [2008] QCA 12, cited
R v Gesler[2016] QCA 311, cited
R v Henderson; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2013] QCA 63, cited
R v Lee[2012] QCA 313, distinguished
R v Lovell [1999] 2 Qd R 79; [1998] QCA 36, cited
R v Mules[2007] QCA 47, cited
R v Ramm[2008] QCA 13, cited
R v Troop[2009] QCA 176, cited
Veen v The Queen [No 2] (1988) 164 CLR 465; [1988] HCA 14, cited

COUNSEL:

Michael Byrne QC for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Henry J and the orders proposed…

Continue reading R v Wano; Ex parte

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Wano; Ex parte [2018] QCA 117
Case
[2018] QCA 117
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Wano; Ex parte was heard by the court where the Attorney-General of Queensland appealed the sentence given to the respondent who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences. The respondent was convicted of burglary and stealing, rape, sexual assault in company, and attempted burglary in the night in company. The court imposed sentences, including three years imprisonment for burglary and stealing, rape and sexual assault in company, and 18 months imprisonment for attempted burglary in the night in company, which was suspended after 323 days and deemed as time served in presentence custody. The appeal was grounded on the argument that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, warranting interference by the appellate court. The appeal hinged on the principle that a sentence may be considered inadequate if it fails to appropriately reflect the gravity of the crimes committed. The court had to consider the principles established in AB v The Queen, which provides that a respondent is entitled to credit for time spent in custody prior to sentencing.

The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. It held that the crimes were of a serious nature, involving violence and a breach of personal integrity. The court considered the cumulative effect of the offences and the necessity to ensure that the sentence adequately reflects the seriousness of the crimes. Consequently, the court varied the sentence by increasing the term for the rape offence to three and a half years imprisonment and set a parole eligibility date of 24 July 2018, thereby setting aside the previous suspension order. The appeal was allowed, and a warrant for the respondent's arrest was issued.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.1.

The sentences imposed below are varied to the following extent:2.

on count 2 (rape) the sentence of three years imprisonment is set aside and instead a sentence of three and a half years imprisonment is imposed; (a)

the order partly suspending the terms of imprisonment is set aside and instead a parole eligibility date is set at 24 July 2018.(b)

A warrant will issue for the arrest of the respondent.3.

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.