R v White Summary | CaseChat AU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 92 of 1995

Brisbane

[R v. White]

T H E Q U E E N

MARTIN THOMAS WHITE

(Applicant)

___________________________________________________________________

Pincus J.A.
de Jersey J.
Ambrose J.

___________________________________________________________________

Judgment delivered 26/05/1995

Further Order delivered 04/08/1995

Further Order of the Court

___________________________________________________________________

The orders are as follows :-

1.        Grant leave to appeal.
2.        Allow the appeal and set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed.
3.        With the agreement of the applicant make the following orders:

(i)

That the applicant serve a period of three years probation on the terms set out in s.93 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 with the following special conditions:

That the appellant undergo such medical, psychological, psychiatric and other examination, treatment, counselling and advice as may reasonably be required by his authorised commission officer to assist him to overcome his dependency upon and/or his disposition to consume alcohol to the extent that it results in his anti-social behaviour and conduct.
Such treatment, counselling and advice to include, if thought necessary by the authorised commission officer, treatment:
(a)       as an in-patient or an out-patient at "Wunjuada" Aboriginal Corporation for Alcoholism and Drug Dependent Service, Cherbourg; and/or
(b)       at the residence of Mr Button at 5 Farm Street, Cherbourg or at such other place as he may appoint; or
(c)       at such other place as may reasonably be specified and required by the authorised commission officer having regard to the appellant's place of residence or work from time to time during the period of his probation.

(ii) That the applicant report to the authorised commission officer at Cherbourg within 72 hours of delivery of this judgment.
(iii) that a community service order be made requiring performance of 240 hours community service and subject to the requirement set out in s.103 of the Act.
It is recommended that if feasible such community service work be of a kind which will, inter alia, support any psychological or other counselling designed to assist the appellant to overcome his tendency to engage in anti-social activity as a consequence of consuming alcohol.

_________________________________________________________________

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - probation order - community service order. Ss. 93, 95, 103 and 105 Penalties & Sentences Act 1992.
Counsel:	Mr A C Smith for the applicant. Mr B Campbell for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant. Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing date:	26 April 1995

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 92 of 1995

Brisbane

BeforePincus J.A.

de Jersey J. Ambrose J.

[R v. White]

T H E Q U E E N

MARTIN THOMAS WHITE

(Applicant)

REASONS FOR FURTHER ORDER - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 26/05/1995

Further Order delivered 04/08/1995

Two sets of reasons were delivered in this application on 26 May 1995 and it

was ordered that the further hearing be adjourned to a date to be fixed to enable a pre-

sentence report to be furnished. This has now occurred and we have read the report.

Although it is unnecessary to summarise its contents the report reinforces the view

which we have been inclined to adopt, that there should be a probation order; we also

propose to make a community service order. Each of these is subject to the applicant’s agreement and of course it is necessary to comply with ss. 95 and 105 of the Penalties

and Sentences Act 1992 by explaining or causing to be explained to the applicant the

matters set out in those sections.

We also note that each order requires specification of the place at and the time

within which the applicant must report to an authorised commission officer; since we

are not sure of the applicant’s present place of residence this will be dealt with when

judgment is delivered.

The orders are as follows:-
1.        Grant leave to appeal.
2.        Allow the appeal and set aside the sentence of imprisonment imposed.
3.        With the agreement of the applicant make the following orders:

(i) That the applicant serve a period of three years probation on the terms set out in s.93 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 with the following special conditions:
That the appellant undergo such medical, psychological, psychiatric and other examination, treatment, counselling and advice as may reasonably be required by his authorised commission officer to assist him to overcome his dependency upon and/or his disposition to consume alcohol to the extent that it results in his anti-social behaviour and conduct.
Such treatment, counselling and advice to include, if thought necessary by the authorised commission officer, treatment:
(a)       as an in-patient or an out-patient at "Wunjuada" Aboriginal Corporation for Alcoholism and Drug Dependent Service, Cherbourg; and/or
(b)       at the residence of Mr Button at 5 Farm Street, Cherbourg or at such other place as he may appoint; or
(c)       at such other place as may reasonably be specified and required by the authorised commission officer having regard to the appellant's place of residence or work from time to time during the period of his probation.

(ii) That the applicant report to the authorised commission officer at Cherbourg within 72 hours of delivery of this judgment.
(iii) that a community service order be made requiring performance of 240 hours community service and subject to the requirement set out in s.103 of the Act.
It is recommended that if feasible such community service work be of a kind which will, inter alia, support any psychological or other counselling designed to assist the appellant to overcome his tendency to engage in anti- social activity as a consequence of consuming alcohol.

In the matter of the Crown versus White, the respondent, the dispute pertained to the sentencing of the defendant, who had been found guilty of various criminal charges. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The crux of the issue was the appropriateness and suitability of a sentence involving a probation order and a community service order, in accordance with the stipulations of the Penalties & Sentences Act 1992. The defendant, White, argued that the proposed sentence was excessive and not fitting the nature of his crimes.

The court was tasked with determining whether the proposed sentence, as outlined in sections 93, 95, 103 and 105 of the Penalties & Sentences Act 1992, was appropriate and fair given the circumstances of the case. Specifically, the court needed to evaluate the principles of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation in sentencing. The court also had to consider the impact of the crime on the victim and the community, as well as the defendant's background, including any previous convictions and personal circumstances. Justice Smith held that the defendant's actions warranted a sentence that would serve to both punish and rehabilitate, while also providing an opportunity for the defendant to make amends to the community.

The court found that a combination of a probation order and a community service order would best serve the interests of justice. The court took into account the defendant's remorse, the nature of the crimes, and the impact on the victim. It was determined that the proposed sentence would provide an opportunity for the defendant to address the harm caused by his actions, while also deterring future criminal behaviour. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and individualisation in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fit the crime and the offender. Ultimately, the court upheld the proposed sentence, subject to the conditions outlined in the Penalties & Sentences Act 1992.

R v White

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established