Court of Appeal

R v Bolton; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2014] QCA 128 (13/0172) Holmes, Fraser and Gotterson JJA 3 June 2014

Full-text: QCA14-128.pdf

Catchwords

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of rape, four counts of supplying dangerous drugs with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug – where the respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the rape offences, suspended after a period of two years with an operational period of five years – where offences were extremely serious with aggravating features including violation of minors and supply of drugs to them – where the appellant contends that the sentence was rendered unreasonable by the sentencing judge's failure to declare the offences serious violent offences under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 or to make another order effectively postponing the respondent’s release – where the prosecutor at first instance advocated for the sentence imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

Summary Notes

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld) – where the respondent pleaded guilty to four counts of rape, four counts of supplying dangerous drugs with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of possessing a thing used in connection with possessing a dangerous drug and one count of possessing a dangerous drug – where the respondent was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the rape offences, suspended after a period of two years with an operational period of five years – where offences were extremely serious with aggravating features including violation of minors and supply of drugs to them – where the appellant contends that the sentence was rendered unreasonable by the sentencing judge's failure to declare the offences serious violent offences under s 161B of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 or to make another order effectively postponing the respondent’s release – where the prosecutor at first instance advocated for the sentence imposed – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate – where the appellant faced the obstacle that the prosecutor at first instance had not suggested that the factual background warranted the making of a serious violent offence declaration – where to the contrary, he acknowledged the appropriateness of suspension of the sentence after two years – where the exercise of the discretion as to whether to make a serious violent offence declaration (or to otherwise postpone the non-custodial component of the sentence) is not a separate or distinct step in sentencing, but part of “the conclusion of the process of arriving at a just sentence” – where there was nothing untoward in the way the sentencing judge exercised his discretion, nor, for that matter, in the approach of the prosecutor at first instance. Appeal dismissed.