R v Goodwin; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)

(2014) 247 A Crim R 582; [2014] QCA 345

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal and new trial
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Grounds for interference
5. › Sentence manifestly inadequate
6. › Whether effective sentence unreasonable and plainly unjust
7. › Multiple offences of burglary, sexual assault, voyeurism and child exploitation material
8. › Parole eligibility date
9. › Criminal Code (Qld), s 669A
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Comparable sentences
4. › Absence of comparable sentencing decisions
5. › Whether absence of comparable sentences widens sentencing discretion
6. › Whether absence makes it more difficult for appellate court to conclude sentence outside permissible bounds
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parole eligibility
4. › Whether common approach of fixing parole eligibility at one-third of head sentence justified
5. › Whether exceptional circumstances warranted departure from common approach
6. › Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 184

Quick Take

The absence of comparable sentencing decisions does not widen the range of permissible sentences available to a sentencing judge, nor does it make it more difficult for an appellate court to find manifest inadequacy. The common approach of fixing parole eligibility at one-third of the head sentence on a guilty plea is not an invariable rule and may be departed from in exceptional cases where the totality of offending warrants it. Where the individual sentences are appropriate but the parole eligibility date results in a manifestly inadequate effective sentence, the appropriate remedy may be to remove the parole eligibility date rather than to restructure the individual sentences.