R v Watson
Case
•
[2009] QCA 243
•28 August 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
R v Watson [2009] QCA 243
[2009] QCA 243
28 August 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Watson involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant following his conviction on 18 counts related to various property offences. The applicant had pleaded guilty to charges including stealing, burglary by breaking, unlawfully using a motor vehicle, burglary, and attempted burglary. The sentencing judge imposed a concurrent sentence of four years' imprisonment for each of the burglary and stealing, burglary by breaking, and burglary offences, with the sentences running concurrently with an existing three-year sentence the applicant was serving at the time. The parole eligibility date was set 18 months after the expiration of the existing sentences. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive given the small sums of money involved and the opportunistic nature of the offending.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence had a largely cumulative effect, considering the small sums of money involved and the nature of the offending. The court also had to consider the submissions made before the sentencing judge, which were not specifically directed at the practical effect of the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of the parole eligibility date set by the sentencing judge.
In allowing the appeal, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the small sums of money involved and the opportunistic nature of the offending warranted a more lenient sentence. The court was also critical of the largely cumulative effect of the sentences and the lack of specific submissions before the sentencing judge regarding the practical effect of the sentence. The court substituted a sentence of three years' imprisonment for counts 6 to 10, 12, and 14 to 19 and confirmed the sentences on the other counts. The court also set aside the parole eligibility date and substituted a new date of 29 September 2010.
The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentence had a largely cumulative effect, considering the small sums of money involved and the nature of the offending. The court also had to consider the submissions made before the sentencing judge, which were not specifically directed at the practical effect of the sentence imposed. Additionally, the court needed to assess the appropriateness of the parole eligibility date set by the sentencing judge.
In allowing the appeal, the court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the small sums of money involved and the opportunistic nature of the offending warranted a more lenient sentence. The court was also critical of the largely cumulative effect of the sentences and the lack of specific submissions before the sentencing judge regarding the practical effect of the sentence. The court substituted a sentence of three years' imprisonment for counts 6 to 10, 12, and 14 to 19 and confirmed the sentences on the other counts. The court also set aside the parole eligibility date and substituted a new date of 29 September 2010.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Criminal Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Sentencing
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
R v Watson [2009] QCA 243
Most Recent Citation
R v Brown [2023] QCA 238
Cases Citing This Decision
4
R v Brown
[2023] QCA 238
R v Fisher
[2013] QCA 311
R v Brown
[2023] QCA 238
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
2
R v Bryant
[2007] QCA 247
R v McKinless
[2004] QCA 280
R v Bryant
[2007] QCA 247