R v Marshall

(2010) 199 A Crim R 331; [2010] QCA 29

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Commonwealth offences
4. › Social security fraud
5. › Recognizance release orders
6. › Whether sentencing judge bound to fix release date at 60-66% of head sentence
7. › Whether perceived norm fettered exercise of sentencing discretion
8. › Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 19AL, 19AM, 20(1)(b)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Commonwealth offences
4. › Consistency in sentencing
5. › Obligation to have regard to sentences imposed across Australian jurisdictions
6. › Whether general uniform practice exists for non-parole periods in social security fraud cases
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Sentence manifestly excessive
6. › Whether sentencing discretion miscarried by application of perceived norm rather than exercise of genuine discretion

Quick Take

There is no requirement that judges sentencing Commonwealth offenders must fix recognizance release dates or non-parole periods at 60-66% of the head sentence. The statement to that effect in R v CAK & CAL was based on a misconception. While such a practice may exist for drug importation offences in New South Wales, no such norm exists in Queensland or most other jurisdictions for social security fraud. Sentencing judges must exercise a genuine discretion having regard to all relevant circumstances and must not mechanically apply a pre-determined formula.