The Court of Appeal held that a sentencing judge's expectation as to a likely parole date is a forecast, not a finding of fact, and that the failure of that expectation to materialise (due to the offender's subsequent misconduct in prison) does not constitute a 'clear factual error of substance' justifying re-opening of a sentence under s 188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). Section 188 is confined to correcting errors in the factual position as it existed at the time of sentencing, and does not extend to addressing developments that occur after sentence is imposed. The appeal was allowed and the original 1991 sentencing orders were confirmed.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 11 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 11 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.