DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Young v White [2016] QDC 159
PARTIES:
BRENDAN YOUNG
(appellant)
and
ADAM CHRISTOPHER WHITE
(respondent)
and
BRENDAN YOUNG
(appellant)
and
DANIEL ANTHONY SANTA-MARIA
FILE NO/S:
(respondent)
and
MICK GUIDA
(appellant)
v
AHMED CHEHAB KADDOUR
(respondent)
and
MICK GUIDA
(appellant)
v
JACQUES VETEA TEAMO
(respondent)
and
NIGEL BULL
(appellant)
v
SANJIN DELALIC
(respondent)
MAG 00190641/13 (9), 00197536/13 (6), 00027933/13, 00190764/13 (3), 0015891/15; Appeals 3538-3542 of 2015.
DIVISION:
PROCEEDING:
Criminal Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
24 June 2016
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
3 June 2016
JUDGE:
McGill SC DCJ
ORDER:
Appeals allowed; sentences imposed by magistrate set aside; respondents resentenced as follows:
- Respondent White: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 2 years and 2 months.
- Respondent Santa-Maria: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 18 months.
- Respondent Kaddour: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 7 months imprisonment; declare 2 days in custody, from 13 to 14 October 2013 inclusive, solely in relation to this offending to be imprisonment already served under the sentence; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 21 months.
- Respondent Teamo: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 13 months imprisonment; declare 2 days in custody, from 1 to 2 October 2013 inclusive, solely in relation to this offending to be imprisonment already served under the sentence; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 2 years and 5 months.
- Respondent Delalic: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 18 months.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – Criminal law – sentence appeal – appeal by prosecution under Justices Act 1886 s 222 – test to be applied – approach to residual discretion.
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – parity principle – application to decision on appeal – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – residual discretion.
Justices Act 1886 s 222(2)(c), s 225.
Barbaro v R (2014) 253 CLR 58 – cited.
Clarke-Davis v Commissioner of Police [2014] QDC 61 – followed.
Commissioner of Police v Watmough [2015] QDC 46 – cited.
Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321 – cited.
Everett v R (1994) 181 CLR 295 – cited.
Green v R (2011) 244 CLR 462 – cited.
Griffith v R (1977) 137 CLR 293 – cited.
House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 – cited.
Lacey v Attorney General (2011) 242 CLR 573 – applied.
Lowe v R [1984] 154 CLR 606 – applied.
Mill v Scott, ex parte Mill [1955] St R Qd 210 – considered.
Munda v Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600 – cited.
Postiglione v R (1997) 189 CLR 295 – applied.
R v Beevers [1942] St R Qd 230 – considered.
R v Bell [1982] Qd R 216 – cited.
R v Cutts [2013] QCA 237 – cited.
R v H (1993) 66 A Crim R 505 – cited.
R v Hopper ex…
Continue reading Young v White
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Young v White [2016] QDC 159
- Case
- [2016] QDC 159
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine whether the sentences imposed by the magistrate were manifestly inadequate, warranting intervention under the Justices Act. This involved assessing the sentences against the principle of parity, which requires consistency in sentencing for similar crimes. The court also had to consider the appropriate exercise of residual discretion to ensure sentences reflected the seriousness of the offences and maintained community confidence in the criminal justice system.
The court found that the sentences were indeed manifestly inadequate, failing to appropriately reflect the gravity of the offences. The court set aside the original sentences and resentenced the respondents. White was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for 2 years and 2 months. Santa-Maria and Delalic were both sentenced to 6 months imprisonment, wholly suspended for 18 months. Kaddour and Teamo were each sentenced to imprisonment terms, with specific days declared as time already served, and their sentences wholly suspended for 21 months and 2 years and 5 months respectively.
The court's decision underscores the importance of ensuring sentences are commensurate with the severity of the crimes and the need for consistency in sentencing to uphold public confidence in the justice system.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeals allowed; sentences imposed by magistrate set aside; respondents resentenced as follows:
- Respondent White: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 12 months imprisonment; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 2 years and 2 months.
- Respondent Santa-Maria: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 18 months.
- Respondent Kaddour: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 7 months imprisonment; declare 2 days in custody, from 13 to 14 October 2013 inclusive, solely in relation to this offending to be imprisonment already served under the sentence; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 21 months.
- Respondent Teamo: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 13 months imprisonment; declare 2 days in custody, from 1 to 2 October 2013 inclusive, solely in relation to this offending to be imprisonment already served under the sentence; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 2 years and 5 months.
- Respondent Delalic: Convicted, conviction recorded, sentenced to 6 months imprisonment; sentence wholly suspended, with an operational period of 18 months.
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.