R v Getawan

[2018] QCA 25

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Sentencing procedure
4. › Pre-sentence custody
5. › Non-declarable pre-sentence custody
6. › Whether sentencing judge required to take non-declarable pre-sentence custody into account in fixing head sentence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Manifestly excessive sentence
5. › Receiving tainted property
6. › Whether sentence manifestly excessive where non-declarable pre-sentence custody not reflected in head sentence
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentence
3. › Appeal against sentence
4. › Extension of time
5. › Whether extension of time should be granted
6. › Interests of justice

Quick Take

Where pre-sentence custody is non-declarable, a sentencing judge must take that period into account in fixing the head sentence, and not merely by setting an earlier parole eligibility date. Adjusting only the parole eligibility date without reducing the head sentence may result in a manifestly excessive sentence. For receiving tainted property at the low end of seriousness, comparable sentences range from 18 months to two years even with substantial criminal history and breach of parole.