SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND"

Transcription

1 SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO: 339 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Cant v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2014] QSC 62 CRAIG CANT (applicant) v COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent) Trial Division DELIVERED ON: 7 April 2014 DELIVERED AT: Appeal under section 19AY of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Supreme Court at Brisbane Brisbane HEARING DATE: 21 October 2013 Further material provided 18 November 2013 JUDGE: ORDER: Daubney J The warrant issued on 12 June 2013 be confirmed. CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - INTEREFERENCE WITH DISCRETION OR FINDING OF JUDGE GENERAL PRINCIPLES where the applicant was sentenced in 2001 to 14 years imprisonment for having committed the federal offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of ecstasy - where the applicant was sentenced in 2004 to a partly concurrent term of 12 years six months imprisonment for the federal offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis resin where the court fixed a single non-parole period for both federal offences where this non-parole period was fixed at nine years six months being 18 May 2011 where the applicant was released on 18 May 2011 where the applicant breached a number of conditions of his parole where a Notice of Revocation was issued where a Queensland magistrate issued a warrant under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) for a non-parole period of 39 months where the applicant contends that the non-parole period of 39 months is excessive in the circumstances Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AU,s 19AV, s 19AW, s 19AY Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573; [2011]

2 2 HCA 10, followed COUNSEL: SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf S J Hamlyn-Harris for the respondent The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent [1] On 12 June 2013, a Queensland magistrate issued a warrant under s 19AW(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) ( the Crimes Act ), which had the effect of fixing a new nonparole period for sentences being served by the applicant for certain federal offences. The applicant now appeals, under s 19AY of the Crimes Act, contending that the non-parole period of 39 months fixed by the magistrate was excessive in the circumstances. 1 Background [2] In 2001, the applicant was sentenced in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to 14 years imprisonment for having committed the federal offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of the drug known as ecstasy. He was given a non-parole period of nine years six months. An appeal against that conviction was dismissed in [3] In 2004, the applicant was convicted, after a re-trial, of the federal offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis resin. He was sentenced in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory to a partly concurrent term of 12 years six months imprisonment, commencing on 19 November 2006 and ending on 18 May 2019 (taking into account pre-sentence custody). In accordance with s 19AB of the Crimes Act the Court fixed a single non-parole period in respect of both federal offences of nine years six months commencing 19 November [4] By a Parole Order dated 16 February 2011, it was directed by an authorised delegate of the Commonwealth Attorney-General, under s 19AL(2) of the Crimes Act, that the applicant be released on parole on 18 May He was released on that date. The Parole Order specified a number of conditions, including: (2)(h) You must not associate with anyone who unlawfully possesses, uses or sells any substance that is a drug or narcotic preparation within the meaning of the Narcotic Drugs Act (2)(i) You must not leave the State of Queensland for seven days or less without first obtaining the written permission of the authorised Queensland Corrective Services officer for the area in which you are residing. 1 Notice of Appeal filed 18 June 2013.

3 3 [5] On 24 October 2012, a Notice of Revocation of the applicant s parole was issued pursuant to s 19AU of the Crimes Act and served on the applicant. The Notice of Revocation referred to a number of breaches by the applicant of his conditions of parole. I will later make reference to those breaches in greater detail. By this Notice of Revocation, the applicant was effectively given 14 days to show cause as to why his parole should not be revoked. [6] On 29 October 2012, a parole assistance organisation made written submissions on behalf of the applicant as to why parole ought not be revoked. Those submissions were not accepted and, by a written Revocation of Parole dated 29 January 2013, the applicant s parole was revoked under s 19AU of the Crimes Act. [7] On 12 June 2013, the applicant appeared before a Queensland magistrate, as a prescribed authority for the purposes of the relevant part of the Crimes Act, 2 on an application for the issue of a warrant under s 19AW for the fixing of a new nonparole period. It is convenient to note here that, as at the time he was brought before the learned magistrate for that application, the applicant had not been formally arrested under s 19AV. The reason he had not been arrested under that section was, quite simply, because he was already being held in custody on remand after having been charged with new offences. In the hearing before me, counsel for the respondent quite properly raised the issue as to whether the lack of a formal arrest under s 19AV impacted on the hearing before the learned magistrate. The applicant was fully apprised of this argument and he expressly disclaimed any reliance on that point. The applicant confirmed that he did not take any issue with the way in which he was brought before the magistrate and did not take issue with the proposition that the magistrate had power to determine the application under s 19AW. [8] Section 19AW relevantly provides that, if the magistrate was satisfied that the applicant was the person named in the Revocation Order, 3 and that he had been notified of the proposal to make the Revocation Order, 4 and that the Revocation Order was still in force, 5 then the magistrate was required to issue a warrant in the prescribed form. 6 The prescribed form, includes fixing a non-parole in respect of the outstanding sentence or sentences. 7 Such a warrant must specify the particulars of the unserved part of each outstanding sentence and, if a non-parole period is fixed, particulars of that period. 8 [9] The applicant was legally represented at the hearing before the learned magistrate. The evidence before the learned magistrate included a statement of facts, the contents of which were not disputed by or on behalf of the applicant. At this hearing it was expressly accepted on behalf of the applicant that he had breached his conditions of parole Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16 prescribed authority.. s 19AW(1)(a). s 19AW(1)(b). s 19AW(1)(c). s 19AW(1): the section uses the term must. s 19AW (1)(f). s 19AW(4).

4 4 [10] In accordance with s 19AW(4), the warrant issued by the learned magistrate included the required particulars as a schedule, the details of sentences to be served : SCHEDULE DETAILS OF SENTENCES TO BE SERVED 2 years, 9 months and 20 days (1023 days), being the unserved part of a 14 year term of imprisonment which commenced on 19 November 2001, being a sentence imposed on 22 July 2003 by the Northern Territory Court of Criminal Appeal for a federal offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of ecstasy. 6 years, 3 months and 19 days (2300 days), being the unserved part of a 12 year and 6 month term of imprisonment which commenced on 19 November 2006, being a sentence imposed on 13 January 2004 by the Northern Territory Supreme Court for a federal offence of being knowingly concerned in the importation of cannabis resin. [11] The learned magistrate s reasons for issuing the warrant were as follows: BENCH: Thank you. I have spent some time looking at the material, in the applicant s application, this court is asked to make a determination in particular in respect of 1C of the application dealing with the defendant s breaches on multiple occasions of parole and of their impact on the defendant s parole eligibility date. The defendant has a serious criminal history with significant periods in custodial settings. I draw on [indistinct] an inference that he well understands the criminal justice culture and the non-negotiable nature of his obligations to comply strictly with rules that are set. The date that concerns the court for the purpose of this application is the date of revocation of parole, that date is the 30 th of January 2013, that the defendant has been in custody prior to that date does not concern this court on this application. He was in custody for other reasons unrelated to his parole and for reasons beyond the control of this court. His fulltime release date is, at this point is I understand to be 18 th of May 2019, I determine that he should serve approximately half the duration between that date and the date of revocation, I assess that date as the 1 st of May 2016 and order that the defendant serve a non-parole period of 39 months. In the normal course, the period that, in my view, ought be the non-parole period would be set at approximately a third of the duration between the parole revocation and the final release date, but these breaches are multiple, they are aggravated because they occur in combination with one another, they occur in context of a serious history, they occur in context of no mitigating circumstances or any prosocial observations that are offered to the court, the only mitigating circumstances here today are the defendant s pleas to the breaches. So the order I make in terms of 1C of the application, in terms of the draft warrant is put before me, I fix the no-parole period at 39 months, to expire on the 30 th of April Are there ancillary orders that need to be made? [12] As I have already noted, the material before the learned magistrate included a statement of facts, the contents of which were not disputed. The material relied on before the learned magistrate also included copies of statements by relevant witnesses in support of the factual matters set out in the statement of facts. The

5 5 statement of facts revealed that, since August 2011, the applicant and others with whom he was associated were under investigation by the Australian Federal Police and the Queensland Police Service, it being suspected that they were conspiring to import a commercial quantity of a border-controlled precursor. The statement of facts gave an overview of the various surveillance methods used by the police during the course of their investigation. It was noted that, throughout the investigation, the applicant primarily resided at a particular address at Bridgeman Downs with his son, Vaun Taylor, another man ( his co-tenant ), that man s wife and their two young children. On 7 August 2012, the applicant was arrested and charged with a range of drug-related offences which he is said to have committed himself and also jointly with other associates, including his co-tenant at Bridgeman Downs. [13] Relevant also to the applicant s breaches of parole was evidence contained in the statement of facts that concerned a number of interstate trips which the applicant had made without obtaining the necessary consent of the authorised Corrective Services officer. Also relevant was the evidence of the applicant s association with persons who were in possession of drugs. The evidence showed that: (a) In March 2012, the applicant travelled to Adelaide on a flight paid for with his co-tenant s credit card. Electronic evidence showed that the applicant s telephone was located in Adelaide on the afternoon of 11 March He flew back to Brisbane from Adelaide on 12 March 2012, and was observed and digitally recorded by police exiting the arrival gate in Brisbane, after departing the flight from Adelaide. (b) (c) (d) Further evidence demonstrated a link between the applicant s telephone being used to contact a certain other associate, and this other person was, in turn, linked to a further associate by telephone calls. That final associate was intercepted by police on 16 March 2012 carrying 42 clip seal bags containing methamphetamine, with a total net weight of grams pure. Telephone records show that on 18 March 2012, that same person s telephone was used to contact the applicant s telephone. Electronic evidence demonstrated that, on 20 April 2012, the applicant s telephone (and, by necessary inference, the applicant himself) travelled into northern New South Wales, returning on 21 April Police surveillance showed that in March 2012, certain other people with whom the applicant was associated travelled to Alice Springs. One of those people made contact with the applicant by telephone. A few weeks later, police executed a search warrant at the business premises of that person, and located grams of methamphetamine. Telephone records then show numerous telephone calls between the applicant s telephone and those belonging to his associates. On 7 May 2012 the applicant himself travelled to Alice Springs, via Cairns. The airline booking had been made in the name of the applicant s son, Vaun Taylor, but was paid for using the applicant s credit card. Closed circuit TV at the Alice Springs airport showed him exiting the airport with the associate at whose premises the police had located the grams of methamphetamine. The records of a particular motel at Alice Springs record a booking for the applicant, and detail his mobile telephone number. Telephone records indicate that, while in Alice Springs, the

6 6 applicant s telephone was used to contact a number of his associates telephones. Closed circuit TV footage at the Alice Springs airport on 8 May 2012 show the applicant passing through security to board a flight to Sydney. He then travelled on to Brisbane. [14] With that detail of evidence put before the learned magistrate, it is hardly surprising that the allegations of breach of parole were not challenged. [15] The applicant had a significant criminal history which pre-dated his involvement in the offences for which he was sentenced in 2001 and Details were before the learned magistrate. That criminal history included a conviction in 1985 for the offences of breaking and entering with an offensive weapon and malicious injury, for which he was sentenced to four years imprisonment, and subsequent offences of dishonesty, including possession of a falsified passport in This appeal [16] This appeal is brought pursuant to s 19AY of the Crimes Act. That section permits an appeal to this Court against, relevantly, the fixing, for the purposes of the warrant, of a non-parole period or the refusal to fix such a period. 9 [17] Section 19AY(3) provides that An appeal is to be by way of rehearing, but the court may have regard to any evidence given before the prescribed authority. [18] In Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) the High Court examined the nature of an appeal under s 669A of the Criminal Code (Qld). 10 The plurality noted that an appeal is a creature of statute and, subject to constitutional limitations, the precise nature of the appellate jurisdiction will be expressed in the statute creating the jurisdiction or inferred from the statutory context. 11 Their Honours continued: 57 Appeals being creatures of statute, no taxonomy is likely to be exhaustive. Subject to that caveat, relevant classes of appeal for present purposes are: 1. Appeal in the strict sense in which the court has jurisdiction to determine whether the decision under appeal was or was not erroneous on the evidence and the law as it stood when the original decision was given. Unless the matter is remitted for rehearing, a court hearing an appeal in the strict sense can only give the decision which should have been given at first instance. 2. Appeal de novo where the court hears the matter afresh, may hear it on fresh material and may overturn the decision appealed from regardless of error. 3. Appeal by way of rehearing where the court conducts a rehearing on the materials before the primary judge in which it is s 19AY(1)(c). (2011) 242 CLR 573. French CJ, Gummow, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel and Bell JJ at [56].

7 7 authorised to determine whether the order that is the subject of the appeal is the result of some legal, factual or discretionary error. In some cases in an appeal by way of rehearing there will be a power to receive additional evidence. In some cases there will be a statutory indication that the powers may be exercised whether or not there was error at first instance. 58 Where the court is confined to the materials before the judge at first instance, that is ordinarily indicative of an appeal by way of rehearing, which would require demonstration of some error on the part of the primary judge before the powers of the court to set aside the primary judge s decision were enlivened. 12 [19] In my opinion, the present appeal under s 19AY is an appeal by way of rehearing, within the third category described in Lacey. It is curious that s 19AY(3) was drafted so as to provide but the court may have regard to any evidence given before the prescribed authority, 13 thereby suggesting that having regard to such evidence is something which would not ordinarily be done on an appeal by way of rehearing. Given that the primary position provided for under the subsection is, however, that the appeal is to be by way of rehearing, it appears that this secondary clause is intended to reinforce the capacity of the Court, on the rehearing, to have regard to the materials before the primary adjudicator. [20] Beyond contending that the non-parole period of 39 months fixed under the warrant was excessive in the circumstances, the applicant did not identify any factual or legal error by the learned magistrate. Nor did the applicant identify any erroneous exercise of the learned magistrate s discretion, beyond the contention that the nonparole period was excessive. [21] In support of his argument that the non-parole period was excessive, the applicant referred to a number of what he described as comparable decisions. 14 None of the cases referred to by the applicant are at all comparable to the present case. For completeness, I will note them briefly: R v Beattie 15 was an appeal against sentence where the applicant had pleaded guilty to two charges of house breaking, two charges of stealing and one charge of false pretences. He was released on a two year probation order. He subsequently breached that probation order. At the breach hearing, the sentencing judge vacated the probation order and sentenced the applicant to 12 months imprisonment. The appeal against that sentence was upheld, essentially because the applicant was a young offender who, in reality, was being sentenced as a first offender. The Court considered that the 12 month sentence was excessive, and reduced that to four months At [57] [58]. Underlining added. At the time of the hearing before me, the applicant had mislaid his copy of these cases due to being shifted from one prison to another. He was given the opportunity to further investigate the matter and to provide me with those cases. Ultimately, some weeks after the hearing before me, copies of these cases were provided. [1998] QCA 357.

8 8 In R v O Rourke 16 the applicant had pleaded guilty to breaking and entering, and had been released on a 12 month probation order. She breached that probation order, and was re-sentenced to 12 months imprisonment. The probation order was breached by a failure to comply with reporting conditions. In that case, the sentence of 12 months imprisonment was considered by the Court of Appeal to be manifestly excessive. Whilst the defendant was considered not to be a suitable candidate for further probation, the Court of Appeal considered it appropriate to order her immediate release by suspending the sentence. B W Ingram v Jones 17 concerned an applicant who had originally been convicted of a breach of bail. The bail which was breached concerned a charge of creating a disturbance. The applicant was granted watchhouse bail, but subsequently failed to appear. It was clear the applicant had alcohol issues. The undisputed submission made on his behalf was that he could not remember being asked to attend Court. Despite having a lengthy criminal history, mostly for street offences, the applicant had never been sent to jail before. In those circumstances, a term of imprisonment for breaching watchhouse bail was considered to be a last resort which was outside the exercise of a sound sentencing discretion. [22] None of these cases have any application to the present matter. [23] On the undisputed statement of facts which was before the learned magistrate, the applicant committed repeated breaches of his conditions of parole both by unauthorised interstate travel and by associating with persons connected with drugs. Despite the brevity of the learned magistrate s reasons, it is clear that her Honour had regard to the serious nature of the breaches of parole conditions, and the fact that the applicant had offered no circumstances of mitigation, beyond his admission of the breaches. The conditions which the applicant breached were obviously designed to reduce the risk of him returning to involvement in drug-related criminal activity. It is objectively a matter for concern that the applicant within 12 months of release on parole committed repeated breaches of his conditions of parole. This fact justifies the serious approach taken by the learned magistrate in setting the nonparole period. [24] It is also clear from the undisputed statement of facts that the breaches of parole conditions were deliberate and planned. The evidence of the applicant s interstate travel demonstrates that he employed a significant amount of deception, together with ongoing association with criminal associates, who had convictions for narcotics offences. On the basis of that evidence, the learned magistrate was clearly correct in her observation that:... These breaches are multiple, they are aggravated because they occur in combination with one another, they occur in the context of a serious criminal history, they occur in context of no mitigating circumstances or any prosocial observations that are offered to the Court [1998] QCA 449. [1999] QCA 351.

9 9 [25] In all the circumstances, and in the absence of the applicant pointing to any error in the exercise of the discretion by the learned magistrate, I am satisfied that the setting of the non-parole period of 39 months was within a proper exercise of discretion by the learned magistrate, was not excessive, and was not infected by error. [26] Section 19AY(5) prescribes the orders that the Court may make on an appeal: (5) The court must:... (c) if the appeal is against the fixing of a non-parole period or the refusal to fix such a period either confirm the warrant or vary the warrant, if it fixes a non-parole period, as specified in the order. [27] Having regard to the requirements of s 19AY(5), therefore, the appropriate order in the present case is that the warrant issued on 12 June 2013 be confirmed.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v McVea [2004] QCA 380 PARTIES: R v McVEA, Peter Andrew (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 145 of 2004 SC No 337 of 2003 SC No 542 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Elizalde [2006] QCA 330 PARTIES: R v ELIZALDE, Christos (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 158 of 2006 SC No 439 of 2006 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: The Queen v Hall [2018] QSC 101 PARTIES: THE QUEEN v GRAHAM WILLIAM McKENZIE HALL (defendant) FILE NO: Indictment No 0348/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Commonwealth DPP v Costanzo & Anor [2005] QSC 079 PARTIES: FILE NO: S10570 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (applicant) v

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kelly [2018] QCA 307 PARTIES: R v KELLY, Mark John (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 297 of 2017 DC No 1924 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Strickland [2003] QCA 184 PARTIES: R v STRICKLAND, Wayne Robert (applicant) FILE NOS: CA No 25 of 2003 DC No 279 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bradforth [2003] QCA 183 PARTIES: R v BRADFORTH, Nathan Paul (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 423 of 2002 SC No 551 of 2002 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Lowe v Director-General, Department of Corrective Services [2004] QSC 418 PETER ANTHONY LOWE (applicant) v DIRECTOR-GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIVE SERVICES

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Bingham [2004] QCA 166 PARTIES: R v BINGHAM, Rhett Adrian (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 76 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Taylor [2005] QCA 379 PARTIES: R v TAYLOR, Dylan (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 192 of 2005 SC No 528 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal

More information

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 Summary of contents Part 1 Preliminary Part 2 Penalties that may be imposed Division 1 General Division 2 Alternatives to full-time detention

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: O Keefe & Ors v Commissioner of the Queensland Police Service [2016] QCA 205 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE O KEEFE (first appellant) NATHAN IRWIN (second appellant)

More information

Sentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes

Sentencing Act Examinable excerpts of PART 1 PRELIMINARY. 1 Purposes Examinable excerpts of Sentencing Act 1991 as at 10 April 2018 1 Purposes PART 1 PRELIMINARY The purposes of this Act are (a) to promote consistency of approach in the sentencing of offenders; (b) to have

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Mentink v Commissioner for Queensland Police [2018] QSC 151 PARTIES: FILE NO: BS6265 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: WILFRED JAN REINIER MENTINK (applicant) v COMMISSIONER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Puchala [03] QCA 5 PARTIES: R v PUCHALA, Paul (appellant) PUCHALA, Matthew (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 332 of 03 CA No 334 of 03 DC No 352 of 03 DIVISION: Court

More information

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015

Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 Version: 9. 7. 2015 Act uncommenced South Australia Criminal Law (High Risk Offenders) Act 2015 An Act to provide for the making of extended supervision orders and continuing detention orders in relation

More information

Appellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent

Appellant. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA129/2016 [2016] NZCA 133 BETWEEN AND MICHAEL MARINO Appellant THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Respondent Hearing: 4 April 2016 Court: Counsel:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Day v Queensland Parole Board [2016] QSC 11 PARTIES: TREVOR DAY (applicant) v QUEENSLAND PAROLE BOARD (respondent) FILE NO/S: SC No 5174 of 2015 DIVISION: PROCEEDING:

More information

Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 No 48

Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Act 2010 No 48 New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Legislation) Amendment (Intensive Correction Orders) Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 Schedule 1 Amendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Cornwall [2005] QCA 345 PARTIES: R v CORNWALL, Jason Colin (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 156 of 2005 DC No 147 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Ericson v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2014] QCA 297 IAN JAMES ERICSON (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION (respondent)

More information

FACT SHEET. Juveniles (children aged 16 or under):

FACT SHEET. Juveniles (children aged 16 or under): FACT SHEET Introduction Arrest and Bail It is important for our clients to have an appreciation of their rights when it comes to such things as being arrested or being granted bail. However, in the event

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Barbaro & Anor [2015] QSC 346 PARTIES: THE QUEEN (respondent) v ROSSARIO DOM BARBARO (first applicant) and CHRISTOS PANAGAKOS (second applicant) FILE NO: 679 of

More information

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed April 20, 2016. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. Nos. 3D14-939, 3D14-938, 3D14-937, 3D14-936, 3D14-935 Lower

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ismail Baasit, : Petitioner : : v. : No. 1281 C.D. 2013 : Submitted: February 7, 2014 Pennsylvania Board of Probation : and Parole, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE

More information

LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69

LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69 LISTENING DEVICES ACT, 1984, No. 69 NEW SOUTH WALES. TABLt OF PROVISIONS. J. Short title. 2. Commencement. 3. Interpretation. 4. Act to bind the Crown. PART I. PRELIMINARY. PART II. OFFENCES RELATING TO

More information

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS JUNE 4, 2009 * COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS JUNE 4, 2009 * COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: All the Justices CHARLENE MARIE WHITEHEAD v. Record No. 080775 OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS JUNE 4, 2009 * COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA In this appeal,

More information

PROBATION AND PAROLE SENIOR MANAGERS CONFERENCE

PROBATION AND PAROLE SENIOR MANAGERS CONFERENCE PROBATION AND PAROLE SENIOR MANAGERS CONFERENCE Level 6 Christie Corporate Centre 320 Adelaide Street, Brisbane Monday, 16 October, 2006 Judge Marshall Irwin Chief Magistrate I take this opportunity to

More information

[2017] QCA 293 COURT OF APPEAL GOTTERSON JA MORRISON JA HENRY J. CA No 153 of 2017 SC No 6 of 2017 THE QUEEN BRISBANE WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2017

[2017] QCA 293 COURT OF APPEAL GOTTERSON JA MORRISON JA HENRY J. CA No 153 of 2017 SC No 6 of 2017 THE QUEEN BRISBANE WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2017 [2017] QCA 293 COURT OF APPEAL GOTTERSON JA MORRISON JA HENRY J CA No 153 of 2017 SC No 6 of 2017 THE QUEEN v BULL, Bradley Joseph Applicant BRISBANE WEDNESDAY, 29 NOVEMBER 2017 JUDGMENT MORRISON JA: Mr

More information

LITIGATING JUVENILE TRANSFER AND CERTIFICATION CASES IN THE JUVENILE AND CIRCUIT COURTS

LITIGATING JUVENILE TRANSFER AND CERTIFICATION CASES IN THE JUVENILE AND CIRCUIT COURTS LITIGATING JUVENILE TRANSFER AND CERTIFICATION CASES IN THE JUVENILE AND CIRCUIT COURTS I. OVERVIEW Historically, the rationale behind the development of the juvenile court was based on the notion that

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Mullen [2006] QCA 317 PARTIES: R V MULLEN, Todd Kenneth (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 175 of 2006 DC No 3220 of 2005 DC No 1341 of 2006 DC No 1512 of 2006 DC No

More information

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 2005 Chapter 2 CONTENTS Control orders Section 1 Power to make control orders 2 Making of non-derogating control orders 3 Supervision by court of making of non-derogating

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Kolb [2007] QCA 180 PARTIES: R v KOLB, Peter Desmond (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 29 of 2007 DC 2585 of 2006 DC 3002 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Eyears v Zufic [2016] QCA 40 PARTIES: MARINA EYEARS (applicant) v PETER ZUFIC as trustee for the PETER AND TANYA ZUFIC FAMILY TRUST trading as CLIENTCARE SOLICITORS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Scrivener v DPP [2001] QCA 454 PARTIES: LEONARD PEARCE SCRIVENER (applicant/appellant) v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (respondent/respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal

More information

Title 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 28 BERMUDA 1997 : 2 STALKING ACT 1997 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS

Title 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 28 BERMUDA 1997 : 2 STALKING ACT 1997 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS BERMUDA 1997 : 2 STALKING ACT 1997 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Short title 2 Interpretation 3 Meaning of "stalking" 4 Offence of stalking 5 Application for protection order 6 Power to make protection order

More information

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64

Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64 New South Wales Surveillance Devices Act 2007 No 64 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Relationship to other laws and matters 2 4 Definitions 2 5 Eligible Judges

More information

COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009

COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Court of Appeal Rules 2009 Arrangement of Rules COURT OF APPEAL RULES 2009 Arrangement of Rules Rule PART I - PRELIMINARY 7 1 Citation and commencement... 7 2 Interpretation....

More information

Examinable excerpts of. Bail Act as at 10 April 2018 PART 1 PRELIMINARY

Examinable excerpts of. Bail Act as at 10 April 2018 PART 1 PRELIMINARY Examinable excerpts of Bail Act 1977 as at 10 April 2018 PART 1 PRELIMINARY 3A Determination in relation to an Aboriginal person In making a determination under this Act in relation to an Aboriginal person,

More information

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 5, 2014; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-000445-MR DAVID TAPP APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BATH CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE BETH LEWIS MAZE,

More information

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Criminal Justice Act 2003 Criminal Justice Act 2003 CHAPTER 44 CONTENTS PART 1 AMENDMENTS OF POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984 1 Extension of powers to stop and search 2 Warrants to enter and search 3 Arrestable offences 4

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER JONES Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 05-209 Donald

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Jones [2008] QCA 181 PARTIES: R v JONES, Matthew Kenneth (applicant/appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 73 of 2008 DC No 58 of 2008 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Newton [2010] QCA 101 PARTIES: R v NEWTON, Robyn Kaye (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 20 of 2010 DC No 74 of 2010 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of

More information

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Bill 2007

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Bill 2007 First print New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Bill 2007 Explanatory note This explanatory note relates to this Bill as introduced into Parliament. Overview of Bill The object of this

More information

Case: 3:17-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/31/17 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: 1

Case: 3:17-cv GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/31/17 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: 1 Case: 3:17-cv-00061-GFVT Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/31/17 Page: 1 of 9 - Page ID#: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION Electronically Filed ALBERT JONES, Plaintiff Case

More information

Chapter 340. Bail Act Certified on: / /20.

Chapter 340. Bail Act Certified on: / /20. Chapter 340. Bail Act 1977. Certified on: / /20. INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA. Chapter 340. Bail Act 1977. ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I PRELIMINARY. 1. Interpretation. bail bail authority

More information

77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. House Bill 2549

77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. House Bill 2549 77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2013 Regular Session Enrolled House Bill 2549 Introduced and printed pursuant to House Rule 12.00. Presession filed (at the request of House Interim Committee on Judiciary)

More information

Sentencing Snapshot. Indecent act with a child under 16. Introduction. People sentenced. Sentence types and trends

Sentencing Snapshot. Indecent act with a child under 16. Introduction. People sentenced. Sentence types and trends Sentencing Snapshot Sentencing trends in the higher courts of Victoria 6 to 9 June No. Indecent act with a child under 6 Introduction This Sentencing Snapshot describes sentencing outcomes for the offence

More information

[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL. McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J. No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN. Applicant BRISBANE JUDGMENT

[2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL. McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J. No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN. Applicant BRISBANE JUDGMENT [2001] QCA 54 COURT OF APPEAL McMURDO P THOMAS JA WILSON J No 238 of 2000 THE QUEEN v S Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 21/02/2001 JUDGMENT 1 21022001 T3/FF14 M/T COA40/2001 THE PRESIDENT: Justice Wilson will

More information

BERMUDA PRISONS ACT : 24

BERMUDA PRISONS ACT : 24 QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA PRISONS ACT 1979 1979 : 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 14A 15 16 17 17A 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24A 24B Short title and commencement Interpretation Savings

More information

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION

RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION Rule 3:21-1. Withdrawal of Plea A motion to withdraw a plea

More information

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE

Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE Title 17-A: MAINE CRIMINAL CODE Chapter 51: SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT Table of Contents Part 3.... Section 1251. IMPRISONMENT FOR MURDER... 3 Section 1252. IMPRISONMENT FOR CRIMES OTHER THAN MURDER...

More information

Introduction 2. Principle Commonwealth Drug Offences 2. Which Court Will Hear Commonwealth Drug Offences 5. Federal Police Investigative Powers 5

Introduction 2. Principle Commonwealth Drug Offences 2. Which Court Will Hear Commonwealth Drug Offences 5. Federal Police Investigative Powers 5 Drugs CHAPTER CONTENTS Introduction 2 Principle Commonwealth Drug Offences 2 Which Court Will Hear Commonwealth Drug Offences 5 Federal Police Investigative Powers 5 Categories of Dangerous Drugs in Queensland

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Cousins v Mt Isa Mines Ltd [2006] QCA 261 PARTIES: TRENT JEFFERY COUSINS (applicant/appellant) v MT ISA MINES LIMITED ACN 009 661 447 (respondent/respondent) FILE

More information

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION BAIL HEARINGS ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site: http://www.lexicongraphics.com/scdla.htm

More information

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION -vs- Case No.: DUSTIN JOHN BENNY USM Number: 21442-045 Ron Hall, CJA 7621

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: The Public Trustee of Queensland as a Corporation Sole [2012] QSC 178 RE: THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF QUEENSLAND AS A CORPORATION SOLE (applicant) FILE NO/S: 4065

More information

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS (FINE DEFAULT) AMENDMENT ACT 1987 No. 264

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS (FINE DEFAULT) AMENDMENT ACT 1987 No. 264 COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS (FINE DEFAULT) AMENDMENT ACT 1987 No. 264 NEW SOUTH WALES TABLE OF PROVISIONS 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Amendment of Act No. 192, 1979 4. Application of amendments to existing

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Sittczenko; ex parte Cth DPP [2005] QCA 461 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 221 of 2005 DC No 405 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: R v SITTCZENKO, Arkady

More information

HB3010 Enrolled LRB RLC b

HB3010 Enrolled LRB RLC b HB3010 Enrolled LRB098 07870 RLC 41597 b 1 AN ACT concerning criminal law. 2 Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, 3 represented in the General Assembly: 4 Section 5. The Criminal Identification

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Till v Johns [2004] QCA 451 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: CA No 209 of 2004 DC No 1 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: PETER TILL (applicant/applicant) v ANTHONY

More information

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 No 90

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Sentencing) Act 2002 No 90 New South Wales Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment (Standard Minimum Contents Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Amendment of Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 92 and other Acts 2 Schedules

More information

Timmy Mills v. Francisco Quintana

Timmy Mills v. Francisco Quintana 2010 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 12-10-2010 Timmy Mills v. Francisco Quintana Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-3004 Follow

More information

case note on Bui v dpp (Cth) - the high court considers double Jeopardy in sentencing appeals

case note on Bui v dpp (Cth) - the high court considers double Jeopardy in sentencing appeals case note on Bui v dpp (Cth) - the high court considers double Jeopardy in sentencing appeals dr gregor urbas* i introduction in its first decision of the year, handed down on 9 february 2012, the high

More information

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION PLEA AGREEMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. KENNETH CONLEY No. 12 CR 986 Judge Gary Feinerman PLEA AGREEMENT 1. This Plea Agreement between the

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : :

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P : : : : : : : : : NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA v. SHALITA M. WHITAKER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA No. 1165 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Judgment

More information

Bail: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law

Bail: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law Bail: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law July 31, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov R40222 Summary This is an overview

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Perpetual Limited v Registrar of Titles & Ors [2013] QSC 296 PARTIES: PERPETUAL LIMITED (ACN 000 431 827) (FORMERLY KNOWN AS PERPETUAL TRUSTEES AUSTRALIA LIMITED (ACN

More information

SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 1999

SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 1999 Consolidated as in force on 1 January 2010 SURVEILLANCE DEVICES ACT 1999 Act No. 21, 1999 Subordinate legislation Subordinate legislation repealed prior to January 2000 is not included in this list. SURVEILLANCE

More information

NATIONAL CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK CONSENT FORM

NATIONAL CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK CONSENT FORM National Criminal Record Check Consent Form NATIONAL CRIMINAL RECORD CHECK CONSENT FORM Please read the General Information sheet attached and compete all sections of this Form. Provide all names which

More information

20 ILCS 2630/5.2) (Text of Section from P.A ) Sec Expungement and sealing. (a) General Provisions. (1) Definitions. In this Act, words

20 ILCS 2630/5.2) (Text of Section from P.A ) Sec Expungement and sealing. (a) General Provisions. (1) Definitions. In this Act, words 20 ILCS 2630/5.2) (Text of Section from P.A. 98-133) Sec. 5.2. Expungement and sealing. (a) General Provisions. (1) Definitions. In this Act, words and phrases have the meanings set forth in this subsection,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Oliver [2018] QCA 348 PARTIES: R v OLIVER, Dean Matthew (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 300 of 2018 DC No 1893 of 2018 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court

More information

Penalties and Sentences Act 1985

Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 Penalties and Sentences Act 1985 No. 10260 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Purposes. 2. Commencement. 3. Definitions. PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 GENERAL SENTENCING PROVISIONS 4. Court may take guilty plea

More information

: CP-41-CR vs. : : : SETH REEDER, : dated January 12, 2015, in which the court summarily denied Appellant s motion for

: CP-41-CR vs. : : : SETH REEDER, : dated January 12, 2015, in which the court summarily denied Appellant s motion for IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LYCOMING COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH : No. CP-41-CR-1376-2012; : CP-41-CR-1377-2012 vs. : : : SETH REEDER, : Appellant : 1925(a) Opinion OPINION IN SUPPORT OF ORDER

More information

CHAPTER 127A CRIMINAL RECORDS (REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS)

CHAPTER 127A CRIMINAL RECORDS (REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS) CHAPTER 127A CRIMINAL RECORDS (REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS) 1997-6 This Act came into operation on 27th March, 1997. Amended by: 1999-2 Law Revision Orders The following Law Revision Order or Orders authorized

More information

ll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION

ll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION ll1. THE SENTENCING COMMISSION What year was the commission established? Has the commission essentially retained its original form, or has it changed substantially or been abolished? The Commission was

More information

Supreme Court of Florida

Supreme Court of Florida Supreme Court of Florida No. SC09-1395 JASON SHENFELD, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [September 2, 2010] CANADY, C.J. In this case, we consider whether a statutory amendment relating to

More information

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUNKLIN COUNTY. Honorable Stephen R. Sharp, Circuit Judge

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUNKLIN COUNTY. Honorable Stephen R. Sharp, Circuit Judge STATE OF MISSOURI, ) ) Respondent, ) ) vs. ) No. SD30959 ) Filed: August 25, 2011 JOHN L. LEMONS, ) ) Appellant. ) APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DUNKLIN COUNTY Honorable Stephen R. Sharp, Circuit Judge

More information

SENATE, No. 881 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 215th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2012 SESSION

SENATE, No. 881 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 215th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2012 SESSION SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Senator RAYMOND J. LESNIAK District 0 (Union) SYNOPSIS Amends special probation statute to give

More information

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, LEACH, HUGHES, SCHWANK, YUDICHAK, BROWNE AND STREET, MARCH 12, 2018 AN ACT

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, LEACH, HUGHES, SCHWANK, YUDICHAK, BROWNE AND STREET, MARCH 12, 2018 AN ACT PRIOR PRINTER'S NOS., PRINTER'S NO. 10 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA SENATE BILL No. 1 Session of 01 INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, LEACH, HUGHES, SCHWANK, YUDICHAK, BROWNE AND STREET, MARCH, 01 AS AMENDED

More information

ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1

ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1 ALABAMA VICTIMS RIGHTS LAWS1 Constitution Art. I, 6.01 Basic rights for crime victims. (a) Crime victims, as defined by law or their lawful representatives, including the next of kin of homicide victims,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v WBG [2018] QCA 284 PARTIES: R v WBG (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 30 of 2018 DC No 2160 of 2017 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: Court of Appeal Sentence

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE A115807 Filed 10/19/07 P. v. Hosington CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

More information

Criminal Procedure Act 2009

Criminal Procedure Act 2009 Examinable excerpts of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 as at 2 October 2017 CHAPTER 2 COMMENCING A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING PART 2.1 WAYS IN WHICH A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS COMMENCED 5 How a criminal proceeding

More information

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM v. Case No. 5D IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JANUARY TERM 2004 STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D03-1251 MARCUS T. BRANNUM, Appellee. / Opinion filed July 2, 2004 Appeal

More information

Queensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992

Queensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992 Queensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992 Act No. 46 of 1992 Queensland DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (FAMILY PROTECTION) AMENDMENT ACT 1992 Section TABLE OF PROVISIONS Page 1 Short title.....................................................

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Roser [2004] QCA 318 PARTIES: R v ROSER, Matthew Scott (applicant) FILE NO/S: CA No 265 of 2004 DC No 1432 of 2004 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: DELIVERED

More information

Interstate Transfer Application Kit

Interstate Transfer Application Kit Interstate Transfer Application Kit This information kit is designed to help prisoners understand the process of applying for interstate transfer on legal or welfare grounds. This includes an explanation

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 25, 2008

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 25, 2008 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 25, 2008 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRIAN EUGENE STANSBERRY, ALIAS Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Knox County No.

More information

Tribunal By-Laws In effect as of May 26, 2014

Tribunal By-Laws In effect as of May 26, 2014 Tribunal By-Laws In effect as of May 26, 2014 Part 1 Jurisdiction and Establishment of Tribunals 1. Adoption of By-law 1.1 This By-law comes into operation on 26/5/2014 and is binding on all members of

More information

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY

NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT. As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY NORTHERN TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA PROSTITUTION REGULATION ACT As in force at 11 December 2001 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Section 1. Short title 2. Commencement 3. Definitions PART 1 PRELIMINARY PART 2 OFFENCES

More information

Revision history (November 2007)

Revision history (November 2007) Criminal Tariff Revision history (November 2007) Date issued Replaced pages Effective date 11/07 all pages 11/07 11/06 all pages, Guide to Billing, Criminal Billing Form, CC 11/06 Section 278 Victim Representation

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: David & Gai Spankie & Northern Investment Holdings Pty Limited v James Trowse Constructions Pty Limited & Ors [2010] QSC 29 DAVID & GAI SPANKIE & NORTHERN

More information

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0094. Sponsored by: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee A BILL. for. AN ACT relating to criminal justice; amending provisions

HOUSE BILL NO. HB0094. Sponsored by: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee A BILL. for. AN ACT relating to criminal justice; amending provisions 0 STATE OF WYOMING LSO-0 HOUSE BILL NO. HB00 Criminal justice reform. Sponsored by: Joint Judiciary Interim Committee A BILL for AN ACT relating to criminal justice; amending provisions relating to sentencing,

More information

Sentencing hearing after conviction for impaired driving; determination of grossly aggravating and aggravating and mitigating factors;

Sentencing hearing after conviction for impaired driving; determination of grossly aggravating and aggravating and mitigating factors; 20-179. Sentencing hearing after conviction for impaired driving; determination of grossly aggravating and aggravating and mitigating factors; punishments. (a) Sentencing Hearing Required. After a conviction

More information

SENTENCING REFORM FAQS

SENTENCING REFORM FAQS 1 Rationale for the reforms 1. Why has the NSW Government passed these sentencing reforms? These reforms are built primarily upon recommendations made by the NSW Law Reform Commission in its Report 139

More information

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Moore v Queensland Police Service [2018] QDC 192 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: 1755/18 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: STEVEN JEREMY MOORE (Appellant) v QUEENSLAND

More information

Basketball Australia/Darwin Basketball Model Disciplinary Tribunals By-law Preamble

Basketball Australia/Darwin Basketball Model Disciplinary Tribunals By-law Preamble Basketball Australia/Darwin Basketball Model Disciplinary Tribunals By-law Preamble This Disciplinary Tribunal By-law ( the By-law ) has been prepared to assist Basketball Australia members in dealing

More information

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Koontz, S.JJ. *

Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Koontz, S.JJ. * Present: Kinser, C.J., Lemons, Goodwyn, and Millette, JJ., and Carrico and Koontz, S.JJ. * SHANDRE TRAVON SAUNDERS OPINION BY v. Record No. 100906 SENIOR JUSTICE HARRY L. CARRICO March 4, 2011 COMMONWEALTH

More information