R v Ceitinn

[2021] QCA 201

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 Excessive or Inadequate
6. › Parole eligibility date
7. › Whether parole eligibility date of slightly less than one third of head sentence manifestly excessive
8. › Whether early guilty pleas and personal circumstances required shorter period
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Parity Principle
4. › Co-offenders receiving same parole eligibility date
5. › Different timing of guilty pleas
6. › Whether utility of late guilty plea justified same parole eligibility date as early guilty plea
7. › Whether justifiable sense of grievance arose

Quick Take

A difference in the timing of guilty pleas between co-offenders does not necessarily require the setting of different parole eligibility dates; it is the utility of the guilty pleas which is to be reflected on sentence. Late guilty pleas entered at the commencement of a lengthy trial may have sufficient utility to justify the same parole eligibility date as early guilty pleas.

Case Details

Citation[2021] QCA 201

CourtQCA

JurisdictionQueensland

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.

1 of the 1 citing case carries a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.

Cited by1

2022R v O'ConnorQCA 65

Relies on3

2021R v EastQCA 54
1997Postiglione v RHCA 26
1984Lowe v RHCA 46

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in