NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
|
|
- Dwayne Wiggins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 139 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA142/07 [2007] NZCA 424 THE QUEEN v GEORGE DARREN CANT Hearing: 18 September 2007 Court: Counsel: Judgment: O'Regan, Potter and Keane JJ S Bailey for Appellant B J Horsley for Crown 28 September 2007 at 11 am JUDGMENT OF THE COURT The appeal against conviction and sentence is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT (Given by Keane J) R V GEORGE DARREN CANT CA CA142/07 [28 September 2007]
2 [1] On 23 January 2007, at trial in the District Court, at Christchurch, George Cant was convicted of three sexual offences on November 2001 against Mrs X, a woman whom he had known for some two years - assault with intent to commit sexual violation, sexual violation by unlawful sexual connection (digital penetration), and indecent assault. On 20 March 2007 he was sentenced in the High Court, at Christchurch, to preventive detention with a non-parole period of six years. [2] Mr Cant appeals his conviction on the single ground that the trial Judge, Judge G S MacAskill, allowed counsel for the Crown to elicit from the complainant, when re-examining her, evidence that was inherently prejudicial: that at the time of the offending alleged Mr Cant might also have offended sexually against others. That evidence of propensity, he contends, might well have convinced the jury that he had committed the offences charged. [3] Mr Cant appeals his sentence contending that the sentencing Judge, John Hansen J, did not consider sufficiently whether a finite sentence would be adequate to protect the community. Had a finite sentence been imposed, Mr Cant says, he would have had to complete a Kia Marama program and that would have reduced any likelihood that he would have offended sexually again. The Judge failed also to take into account that he was then subject to an extended supervision order. Issue at trial [4] At trial the issue was not whether there had on November 2001 been in some sense the intimacies Mrs X described. The issue was whether on 20 November Mr Cant assaulted her to violate her and violated her, and whether on 21 November he indecently assaulted her. Everything that happened between them over those two days, it was his case, Mrs X invited; and the background against which that had to be resolved was singular. [5] The jury was made aware that as at November Mr Cant, who had been staying with Mrs X, her husband and their four children, for almost a month, in a caravan on their property, was a sentenced prisoner on parole. The immediate issue was whether Mrs X and her husband, both pastors of a local church that they had
3 founded, had, as they said, invited Mr Cant to stay out of pastoral concern, or whether, as Mr Cant said, this came about because while he was in prison he and Mrs X had already formed a relationship. [6] Mr Cant and Mrs X had met in 1999, the jury was told, while he was serving the sentence in respect of which he was granted parole, that she was then a prison visitor and that she, and sometimes her husband, had continued to visit him. The sentence he was then serving was withheld from the jury. It was a sentence of nine years and nine months, imposed in January 1997 for aggravated robbery, burglary, escape from custody, common assault, and lesser offences. [7] Mr Cant s defence did not rest there. He put in issue why Mrs X delayed in complaining as long as she did. Mrs X did tell her husband on 20 November 2001 that Mr Cant had assaulted her sexually. She did not say more. She did not tell him of what happened the next day. She delayed telling him completely what had happened until early February She did not complain to the police until 16 October 2003; and then, Mr Cant contended, she was trying to explain their relationship away. [8] A closely related issue for the jury was why, when Mr Cant returned to custody on 26 November 2001, and not as a result of any complaint by Mrs X, she continued to visit him over the next year or so, sometimes with her husband but not always. Mr Cant called two witnesses to say that she was affectionate; to say that she took Mr Cant s hand, she put her arm around his neck, she cuddled him and even sat on his knee. [9] Mrs X denied ever showing such manifest signs of affection. She denied ever feeling more than sympathy for Mr Cant, and after November 2001, she said, she felt in some sense accountable. She thought Mr Cant had wilfully misunderstood her and manipulated her. She also thought him highly vulnerable. When he returned to prison he attempted suicide three times. She could not exclude the possibility that, unwittingly, she may in some sense have contributed.
4 [10] The jury clearly found Mrs X worthy of belief but on this appeal, it is contended, must have been influenced in its verdict by an illegitimate consideration. [11] The jury was not told, nor could it have been allowed any inkling of, why on 26 November 2001 Mr Cant returned to custody that he had, while staying with Mrs X and her husband, on 17 November indecently assaulted a boy aged over 12 and on 25 November three other boys and a girl, all aged under 12. Nor could the jury be told, nor was it, that on 13 June 2002, having admitted these offences immediately, Mr Cant was sentenced to two years and three months imprisonment. [12] Equally, the jury was not told, nor could it be, that when at large in late 2003 and early 2004 Mr Cant committed, and admitted to, two burglaries and some lesser offences for which on 11 May 2004 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment; a sentence he was still serving at the time of his trial. [13] It is Mr Cant s case that when Mrs X was re-examined and disclosed that others had complained he had offended against them, she tipped the jury off. She did not name the children, or describe the harm they had suffered, or disclose that he had admitted the offending and been sentenced. The jury could only have inferred, however, that what was complained of was offending sexual in character and could well have inferred that it accounted for Mr Cant s return to custody. Almost certainly, the jury must have concluded that he had a propensity to offend sexually. Disclosure inconsequential and remedied [14] We do not consider that this ground of appeal has substance. The disclosure came out in evidence inadvertently. It was included in an answer to a question entirely open to counsel for the Crown. It was brief and oblique and the Judge dealt with it more than adequately in his summing up. [15] In advancing this point Mr Cant assumes that, when she was re-examined, Mrs X disclosed the children s complaints in answer to a question to which his then counsel had objected prospectively. That is not so. The question his counsel feared might carry that risk was as to why on 24 November 2001, when the officer
5 investigating the children s complaints spoke to her, Mrs X denied that she herself had suffered any physical or sexual assault; a theme pursued when she was cross-examined. [16] The Judge seemingly allowed that question to be put but may well have directed that it be carefully circumscribed. Certainly Mrs X was circumspect in her answer. This was the exchange: Q. You were asked by my friend yesterday about being specifically asked by a police officer, I think it was on the 24 th of November, whether Mr Cant had either physically or sexually assaulted you. A. Mm. Q. And I think you d answered that no. Immediately prior to that what had happened to you personally? A. Just before he had asked me that, earlier that day I had been physically assaulted and um it was only five or six days after what had happened with George so I was very, very traumatised and um yeah. [17] The disclosure came in answer to the next question that counsel for the Crown asked, one as to which no issue had been raised and which he was obliged to ask why Mrs X had continued to visit Mr Cant in prison. And the answer she gave could not have been anticipated. This was the crucial exchange: Q. I want to move on because my friend asked you about your ongoing contact with Mr Cant after he went back to jail. A. Mm. Q. Was there a specific reason why both you and your husband had initially ongoing contact with Mr Cant. A. There were a number of different reasons for me um one of the reasons was, well for me, I suppose for me the greatest reason was that he was suicidal and I couldn t cope with that. I think my husband would have said look, you know, it doesn t matter we ll you know um break contact anyway but um he had also offended against someone in our oh sorry, made an allegation um I shouldn t have put that out um of offending. There was an allegation of offending against someone in our church um and ah um I think my husband felt that we it would be helpful for us to continue to contact in that sense. I also had a because I d put out years ago that I would also be George s friend I had this sort of misplaced loyalty um that I would go through anything, whatever the cost, because I d
6 made that commitment and um it was all things yeah I had to reassess. [18] Mrs X seems to have made the disclosure almost inadvertently. Immediately she began, she said that she should not have. She was quick to say that she was not speaking of offending, but of complaints, and she did not say of what sort. She immediately reverted to the point of the question why she and her husband continued to support Mr Cant. [19] The Judge dealt with any risk of prejudice to Mr Cant arising from this disclosure when he instructed the jury that the fact that Mr Cant had been in prison before and after the offending was relevant only to context, not whether he had committed the offence. The Judge tied in the disclosure in passing. He said: You have heard evidence that the accused has been in prison and that his association with the complainant began when he was in prison and continued while he was in prison. There was also mention of the fact that there was an allegation against him by a member of the complainant s church. [20] Then, the Judge told the jury, they would not normally have heard that Mr Cant was a sentenced prisoner, because of the prejudice this entailed. He explained that they had to know of this. Otherwise they would not have begun to understand the case. That, he said, was its sole significance. In passing, once again, he gathered in the disclosure. With our interpolation, he said: you must be very careful not to allow this evidence [the evidence described in para [19] above] to weigh unfairly against the accused. The evidence is not relevant to the question whether the accused committed the offences alleged. You must not assume that because he has spent time in jail and that someone has made an allegation against him that this suggests that he is or might be guilty of the offences now charged or that he is the sort of person likely to commit crimes of the type charged. Except to the extent that the evidence explains the background to the relationship between the accused and the complainant provides context to the events that happened, therefore, you must ignore it. [21] Mr Cant accepts that this direction met any prejudice to him inherent in the jury learning, as it had to to understand his defence, that he was a sentenced prisoner. It did not, he contends, meet the prejudice to him resulting from Mrs X s disclosure. The Judge should instead have directed the jury, quite distinctly, that they ought to have ignored that disclosure altogether. We cannot agree.
7 [22] The Judge strongly directed the jury to treat the evidence in both categories as going only to context, not guilt, and otherwise to ignore it and that is all that he could have said about the disclosure independently. Moreover, had he spoken of it independently, he would have highlighted it and that carried a risk of prejudice that did not otherwise exist. In mentioning it in passing, he invited the jury to do likewise. That can only have been to Mr Cant s benefit. Sentence appeal [23] On his appeal against sentence Mr Cant contends that in imposing preventive detention John Hansen J, the sentencing Judge, did not adequately consider, as s 87 of the Sentencing Act 2002 required, whether a finite sentence might equally well have served to protect the community, especially when coupled with the extended supervision order then in place. [24] John Hansen J did consider that question, however, and in the detail that s 87 requires. He identified the question at the outset and set it against each of the five factors in subs 4, including that in subs 4(e): The principle that a lengthy determinate sentence is preferable as this provides adequate protection for society. [25] As to that last consideration, John Hansen J was clear. Both assessors, he said, considered that there was a high risk that Mr Cant would offend seriously in the future, violently as well as sexually. Mr Cant s most recent offending, he held, so reflective of his past offending, made that prospect almost inevitable. A finite sentence, even combined with an extended supervision order, he concluded, could not begin to be adequate. [26] In this John Hansen J relied especially on a passage from the psychiatric assessment, which fairly states also the best case for a finite sentence: Overall, the historical and situational risk factors support the view that the defendant poses a comparatively high risk of further violent or sexual offending in the following context: the absence of further treatment regarding his sexual arousal patterns; persistent emotional regulation difficulties; access to vulnerable victims; access to alcohol and/or illicit
8 substances; inadequate social network; persistence of antisocial tendencies; inadequate external supervision. If he does offend again, potential victims of sexual offences including both male and female adults and children, who are vulnerable because of their age or accessibility. Potential victims of violence will include members of the public in the context of acquisitive offending. In my clinical view, the chronicity, severity, and persistence of his personality difficulties (underpinned by significant developmental trauma) which are characterised by lifelong instability, strongly suggest that in terms of future risk management, the defendant would benefit from a strong emphasis being placed in the provision of adequate external constraints and supervision. [27] Having reviewed the assessments ourselves against Mr Cant s history of past offending, and the offences for which he was for sentence, we are satisfied that there was no error in John Hansen J s approach and we agree with his conclusions. [28] We should be clear that John Hansen J did not deny Mr Cant the opportunity to complete a Kia Marama program. At most he set back that opportunity, indeed necessity, a little later than would be the case had he imposed a finite sentence in the vicinity of six years or more. But that is a peripheral consideration. [29] What John Hansen J had to decide, in the public interest, was whether, if a finite sentence were imposed, Mr Cant was likely to offend on his release date in a serious way either sexually or violently. Whether a Kia Marama program, to which Mr Cant had proved more receptive on a second attempt, before Mrs X made her complaint, was likely to reduce the risk of further sexual offending neither assessor was able to predict. But that apart, both assessors were equally concerned about Mr Cant s propensity to offend seriously in a violent way. [30] When he was young and in care Mr Cant suffered, and was clearly very damaged by, sexual abuse. The effect on his life has been profound and he has become a risk to the community. As the assessments say, Mr Cant fears abandonment and rejection, he cannot cope with anger and fear, he blames others, he resorts to substances and he can be violent. [31] This is reflected in his offending. Amongst his many convictions, Mr Cant has 44 convictions for burglary, 37 at night, and a not insignificant number for assault, for possession of weapons and for threatening to kill or do grievous bodily harm. The risk to the community inherent in this pattern of offending alone must
9 continue to be high. His propensity to offend sexually, though more recent, must continue to remain equally concerning. Result [32] Mr Cant s appeal against his conviction is dismissed, as is his appeal against his sentence. Solicitors: Crown Law Office, Wellington
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI THE QUEEN ROBERT JOHN BROWN SENTENCING NOTES OF ANDREWS J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY CRI 2005-020-003954 THE QUEEN v ROBERT JOHN BROWN Hearing: 30 July 2008 Appearances: C R Walker for the Crown D H Quilliam for the Prisoner Judgment: 30
More informationTHE QUEEN TOKO MARCUS PEARSON. Guilty SENTENCE OF MACKENZIE J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND ROTORUA REGISTRY CRI-2004-070-4342 THE QUEEN 0 V TOKO MARCUS PEARSON Charges: Pleas: Counsel: Sentence: I. Burglary 2. Injuring with intent to cause grievous bodily harm
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA198/2016 [2017] NZCA 404. GEORGE CHARLIE BAKER Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Hearing: 31 July 2017
NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT IN OFFENDING OF 27 AUGUST 2009 REMAINS IN FORCE. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Miller J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA790/2013 [2014] NZCA 106 BETWEEN AND UGESH DUTT Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 4 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Miller, Ronald Young and Clifford
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. The appeal, which is against both conviction and sentence, is dismissed. REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA592/2012 [2013] NZCA 339 BETWEEN AND MARK HETERAKA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2013 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Heath and Keane JJ L L Heah
More informationTHE QUEEN. D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner SENTENCE OF RANDERSON J
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY T.013648 THE QUEEN V BOWEN PUTOA NEHA MANIHERA Date: 3 February 2003 Counsel: Sentence: D M Wilson QC for Crown C M Clews for Prisoner Four years imprisonment
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: DISTRICT COURT ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION
More informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Williams, Venning and Mander JJ. A G V Rogers, M H McIvor and J Kim for Appellant M H Cooke for Respondent
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 200 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70. v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. MacLean, 2015 NSPC 70 Date: 2015-10-15 Docket: 2825618 Registry: Pictou Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Nathan Fred Grant MacLean SENTENCING DECISION Restriction
More informationKARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Ellen France, MacKenzie and Mallon JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA686/2013 [2014] NZCA 93 BETWEEN AND KARL MURRAY BROWN Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 18 February 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Ellen France, MacKenzie
More informationThe Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing
The Criminal Justice System: From Charges to Sentencing The Key Principles The aim the system is to protect and to regulate society, to punish offenders and to offer rehabilitation; The Government, through
More informationORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 140 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF APPELLANT PURSUANT TO S 140 CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS, OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA254/2014 [2015]
More informationSection 810. This booklet explains the 810 process, what your rights are and how to get legal help.
INFORMATION FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA Section 810 The Criminal Code of Canada allows a judge or justice of the peace to require you to enter into a recognizance (like a peace bond) if there
More informationAppellant. JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA831/2013 [2014] NZCA 119 BETWEEN AND THE QUEEN Appellant JOHN DAVID WRIGHT Respondent Hearing: 12 March 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Wild, Goddard and Clifford
More informationCore Worker Exemption Application Guidance for Individuals
Core Worker Exemption Application Guidance for Individuals About this guide This guide will help you to complete the Core Worker Exemption Application Form. It provides information about the Core Worker
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA135/03 THE QUEEN v ROGER HOWARD MCEWEN Hearing: 19 June 2003 Coram: Glazebrook J Heath J Doogue J Appearances: D G Harvey for Appellant M F Laracy for Crown Judgment:
More informationAppellant. 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 informationCore Worker Exemption Application Guidance for Individuals
Core Worker Exemption Application Guidance for Individuals About this guide This guide will help you to complete the Core Worker Application Form. It provides information about the Core Worker Exemption
More informationI TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA116/2017 [2018] NZCA 477. CHRISTOPHER ROBERT HALPIN Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES, OCCUPATIONS OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY SS 203 AND 204 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE
More informationLAW REFORM (DECRIMINALIZATION OF SODOMY) ACT
WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REFORM (DECRIMINALIZATION OF SODOMY) ACT No. 32 of 1989 AN ACT to amend The Criminal Code and to make certain acts unlawful. [Assented to 19 December 1989] WHEREAS, the Parliament
More informationJUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE)
Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate) JUSTICES CLERKS SOCIETY SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE (CHIEF MAGISTRATE) Youth Court Jurisdiction The Modern Approach July 2015 This is the joint advice of the Justices'
More informationHearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect
Hearsay confessions: probative value and prejudicial effect Don Mathias Barrister, Auckland Hearsay confessions In order to raise a reasonable doubt about the accused s guilt, the defence may seek to call
More informationTHE CROWN JUNIOR SAMI. NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND THE CROWN v JUNIOR SAMI Hearing: 14 October 2005 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown J Edgar for the Defendant NOTES OF JUDGE FWM McELREA ON SENTENCING [1] The defendant,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL SENTENCE OF LAURENSON J.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY TO30332 Q U E E N v RICHARD GEOFFREY BULL Hearing: 1-4 March 2004 Appearances: Mr Crayton for the Crown Mr Pyke for the Prisoner Judgment: 6 April 2004
More informationI TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI [2018] NZHC 770. Appellant. THE QUEEN Respondent
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGANUI REGISTRY I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGANUI ROHE CRI-2018-483-1 [2018] NZHC 770 BETWEEN AND RUBEN HAWEA Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 17 April 2018
More informationCREATIVE SENTENCING Capital Sentencing Techniques for Your Non-Capital Client
CREATIVE SENTENCING Capital Sentencing Techniques for Your Non-Capital Client Kathryn Kase Executive Director Texas Defender Service Your Most Difficult Client... Describe him without reference to the
More informationDomestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]
[AS AMENDED IN STANDING COMMITTEE E] CONTENTS PART 1 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC Amendments to Part 4 of the Family Law Act 1996 1 Breach of non-molestation order to be a criminal offence 2 Additional considerations
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 v S Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 21/02/2001 JUDGMENT 1 21022001 T3/FF14 M/T COA40/2001 THE PRESIDENT: Justice Wilson will
More informationPolicy of the Provincial Court of British Columbia
Information Regarding Bans on Publication Policy Effective Date: Policy Code: February 28, 2011 ACC-3 Scope of Application: Applies to Provincial Court of proceedings. Purpose of Policy To provide a general
More informationNEW ZEALAND GAZETTE, No MAY 2017
Court of Trial Protocol Established by the Chief High Court Judge and the Chief District Court Judge for Category 2 and 3 s Pursuant to 66 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011 This protocol identifies cases
More information692 Part VI.b Excuse Defenses
692 Part VI.b Excuse Defenses THE LAW New York Penal Code (1999) Part 3. Specific Offenses Title H. Offenses Against the Person Involving Physical Injury, Sexual Conduct, Restraint and Intimidation Article
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2015-044-002617 [2016] NZHC 254 THE QUEEN v STEAD NUKU NIGEL JOHN LAKE Hearing: 24 February 2016 Appearances: S McColgan for the Crown R M Mansfield
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Riddler [2011] QSC 24 ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v ROBERT LESLIE RIDDLER (respondent)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC Plaintiff. THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND First Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2016-404-000544 [2016] NZHC 2237 UNDER THE Judicature Amendment Act 1972, Section 4 BETWEEN AND KARL NUKU Plaintiff THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND
More informationIsobel Kennedy, SC Law Library
8 th ANNUAL NATIONAL PROSECUTORS CONFERENCE SATURDAY, 19 MAY 2007 DUBLIN CASTLE CONFERENCE CENTRE Isobel Kennedy, SC Law Library ~ Defence of Diminished Responsibility 1.GENERAL 8 th Annual National Prosecutors
More informationOffender Management Act 2007
Offender Management Act 2007 CHAPTER 21 Explanatory Notes have been produced to assist in the understanding of this Act and are available separately 7 50 Offender Management Act 2007 CHAPTER 21 CONTENTS
More informationProposal. Budget sensitive. In confidence. Office of the Minister of Justice. Chair. Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW
Budget sensitive In confidence Office of the Minister of Justice Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee REFORM OF FAMILY VIOLENCE LAW Paper Three: Prosecuting family violence Proposal 1. This paper is the
More informationCatching up with crime and sentencing. Catching up with crime and sentencing
Booklet Catching up with crime and sentencing Catching up with crime and sentencing Improving public attitudes to the Criminal Justice System: The impact of information What do do we we know about crime?
More informationGARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD
[02] QCA 369 COURT OF APPEAL WILLIAMS JA JERRARD JA HELMAN J CA No 59 of 02 THE QUEEN v. GARRETT TIMOTHY BIELEFELD Applicant BRISBANE..DATE 9/09/02 JUDGMENT MR N V WESTON (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: R v Condon [2010] QCA 117 PARTIES: R v CONDON, Christopher Gerard (appellant) FILE NO/S: CA No 253 of 2009 DC No 114 of 2009 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT:
More informationTHE AUTOMATIC EARLY RELEASE AND SUPERVISION OF PRISONERS IN SCOTLAND. Monica Barry * A. THE PRISONERS (CONTROL OF RELEASE) (SCOTLAND) ACT 2015
THE AUTOMATIC EARLY RELEASE AND SUPERVISION OF PRISONERS IN SCOTLAND Monica Barry * A. THE PRISONERS (CONTROL OF RELEASE) (SCOTLAND) ACT 2015 The Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993
More informationRecruitment of Ex Offenders Policy
POLICY: Recruitment of Ex Offenders APPROVAL BODY: REF: ESD012 Employment & Staff Development DATE: VERSION: 1 REVIEW DATE: ALET Board 11 th July 2017 10 th July 2017 LEAD PERSON: Group HR VERSION REVIEWER/APPROVAL
More informationTHE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER. Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused
NOT RECOMMENDED IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CRI-2004-085-1865 WELLINGTON REGISTRY THE QUEEN JOHN MICHAEL COCKER Counsel: K Stone for the Crown I M Antunovic for the Accused Sentencing: 15 October
More informationNursing and Midwifery Council:
Nursing and Midwifery Council Fitness to Practise Committee Substantive Hearing 26 January 2018 Nursing and Midwifery Council, 61 Aldwych, London WC2B 4AE Name of Registrant Nurse: Mr Richard Imperio NMC
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN REBEL WAITOHI. K A Stoikoff for Prisoner
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CRI-2013-044-1109 [2014] NZHC 1018 THE QUEEN v Hearing: 15 May 2014 REBEL WAITOHI Appearances: T M Cooper for Crown K A Stoikoff for Prisoner Sentence:
More informationSUPREME 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 informationIN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS
IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Appellate Jurisdiction [2011] CCJ 4 (AJ) ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BARBADOS CCJ Application No AL 1 of 2011 BB Criminal Appeal No 22 of 2008 BETWEEN JIPPY
More informationCERTIFICATION PROCEEDING
CERTIFICATION PROCEEDING PURPOSE: TO ALLOW A JUVENILE COURT TO WAIVE ITS EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND TRANSFER A JUVENILE TO ADULT CRIMINAL COURT BECAUSE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE OFFENSE ALLEGED
More informationBefore : THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE OF ENGLAND AND WALES LORD JUSTICE GROSS and MR JUSTICE MITTING Between :
Neutral Citation Number: [2012] EWCA Crim 2434 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM CAMBRIDGE CROWN COURT His Honour Judge Hawksworth T20117145 Before : Case No: 2012/02657 C5 Royal
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2014 [2015] NZSC 132. MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 124/2014 [2015] NZSC 132 BETWEEN JIAXI GUO First Appellant JIAMING GUO Second Appellant AND MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION Respondent Hearing: 9 July 2015 Court: Counsel:
More informationJustice Sector Outlook
Justice Sector Outlook March 216 quarter Contents Summary of the current quarter 1 Environmental factors are mixed 2 Emerging risks of upwards pipeline pressures 3 Criminal justice pipeline 4 Pipeline
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI [2017] NZDC THE QUEEN JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND CRI-2016-004-000272 [2017] NZDC 17014 THE QUEEN v JAE MOOK MOON HYUNG BOK LEE Hearing: 2 August 2017 Appearances: F Culliney for the Crown P Hamlin for the Defendant Moon
More informationJUDGMENT. R v Smith (Appellant)
Trinity Term [2011] UKSC 37 On appeal from: [2010] EWCA Crim 530 JUDGMENT R v Smith (Appellant) before Lord Phillips, President Lord Walker Lady Hale Lord Collins Lord Wilson JUDGMENT GIVEN ON 20 July
More informationSubject: Offences Committed Against Peace Officers Date: October 2015
Manitoba Department of Justice Prosecutions Policy Directive Guideline No. 2:PRO:1 Subject: Offences Committed Against Peace Officers Date: October 2015 POLICY STATEMENT: Peace officers are on the front
More informationSUPREME 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 informationAppellant. THE QUEEN Respondent. Harrison, Goddard and Andrews JJ JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
DRAFT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA761/2013 [2014] NZCA 375 BETWEEN AND BENJAMIN VAINU Appellant THE QUEEN Respondent Hearing: 29 July 2014 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Harrison, Goddard and Andrews
More informationS G C. Dangerous Offenders. Sentencing Guidelines Council. Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Dangerous Offenders Guide for Sentencers and Practitioners CONTENTS PART ONE Introduction 5 PART TWO PART THREE Criteria for imposing sentences under the dangerous
More informationVictims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37
New South Wales Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 No 37 Contents Part 1 Part 2 Preliminary Page 1 Name of Act 2 2 Commencement 2 3 Definitions 2 Victims rights Division 1 Preliminary 4 Object of Part
More informationA GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA) CLAIMS
A GUIDE TO CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION AUTHORITY (CICA) CLAIMS What is the CICA? The CICA is a government-funded Scheme, designed to compensate blameless victims of violent crime, which includes sexual
More informationIdentifying Chronic Offenders
1 Identifying Chronic Offenders SUMMARY About 5 percent of offenders were responsible for 19 percent of the criminal convictions in Minnesota over the last four years, including 37 percent of the convictions
More informationKey Legal Terms: When Charges are Laid in a Domestic Dispute
Key Legal Terms: When Charges are Laid in a Domestic Dispute Assault Assault is when one person intentionally applies force to another person, or attempts or threatens to apply force to another person,
More informationISSUES. Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing. Prepared by: Andrew Mason
SENTENCING ISSUES Saskatoon Criminal Defence Lawyers Association December 1, 1998 Fall Seminar, 1998: Bail Hearings and Sentencing Prepared by: Andrew Mason Also available to members at the SCDLA Web site:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN. S N McKenzie for Crown
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY CRI-2014-425-000043 [2014] NZHC 3274 TELEISHA MCLAREN v Hearing: 15 December 2014 R Appearances: H T Young for Appellant S N McKenzie for Crown Judgment:
More informationCRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS
Legal Practice Course 2014-2015 CRIMINAL LITIGATION PRE-COURSE MATERIALS Copyright Bristol Institute of Legal Practice, UWE AN INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LITIGATION 1. Introduction: You will be studying
More informationREPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT (JOHANNESBURG)
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
More informationAs Introduced. Regular Session H. B. No
132nd General Assembly Regular Session H. B. No. 38 2017-2018 Representative Greenspan Cosponsors: Representatives Anielski, Barnes, Goodman, Keller, Kick, Lipps, Patton, Perales, Riedel, Retherford, Sprague,
More informationCriminal Code CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES
BELIZE: CRIMINAL CODE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) BILL, 2013 ARRANGEMENT OF CLAUSES 1. Short title. 2. Amendment of section 12. 3. Repeal and substitution of section 25. 4. Amendment of section 45. 5. Repeal and
More informationJAMAICA. JEROME ARSCOTT v R. 10 November [1] On 10 February 2011, a young lady went home to find a group of police and
[2014] JMCA Crim 52 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL RESIDENT MAGISTRATES CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 21/2013 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MRS JUSTICE McINTOSH JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA JEROME
More informationAnnex C: Draft guidelines
Intimidatory Offences and Domestic abuse guidelines Consultation 53 Annex C: Draft guidelines Overarching Principles: Domestic Abuse Applicability of the Guideline In accordance with section 120 of the
More informationRefuge response to Ministry of Justice Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system 4 June 2013
Refuge response to Ministry of Justice Transforming Legal Aid: Delivering a more credible and efficient system 4 June 2013 Introduction Refuge opened the world s first refuge in 1971 and is now the country
More informationCRIMES AMENDMENT (SEXUAL OFFENCES) BILL 2008
Full Day Hansard Transcript (Legislative Council, 26 November 2008, Proof) Proof Extract from NSW Legislative Council Hansard and Papers Wednesday, 26 November 2008 (Proof). CRIMES AMENDMENT (SEXUAL OFFENCES)
More informationNOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985.
NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANTS PROHIBITED BY S 139 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1985. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA695/2014 [2016] NZCA 163 BETWEEN AND
More informationReconviction patterns of offenders managed in the community: A 60-months follow-up analysis
Reconviction patterns of offenders managed in the community: A 60-months follow-up analysis Arul Nadesu Principal Strategic Adviser Policy, Strategy and Research Department of Corrections 2009 D09-85288
More informationABOLITION OF CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ACT 1999 BERMUDA 1999 : 51 ABOLITION OF CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ACT 1999
BERMUDA : 51 ABOLITION OF CAPITAL AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ACT [Date of Assent 23 December ] [Operative Date 23 December ] WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Criminal Code to abolish capital and corporal
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SUPREME COURT In Case No. 2015-0010, State of New Hampshire v. William DeGroot, the court on September 21, 2018, issued the following order: The defendant, William DeGroot, appeals
More informationS G C. Reduction in Sentence. for a Guilty Plea. Definitive Guideline. Sentencing Guidelines Council
S G C Sentencing Guidelines Council Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea Definitive Guideline Revised 2007 FOREWORD One of the first guidelines to be issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council related
More informationCOOK ISLANDS CRIMES AMENDMENT ACT 2003 ANALYSIS
COOK ISLANDS CRIMES AMENDMENT ACT 2003 ANALYSIS 1. Short Title 2. Interpretation 3. Extraterritorial jurisdiction 4. Organised crime 5. Corrupt use of official information 6. Conspiring to defeat justice
More informationCRIMINAL OFFENCES. Chapter 9
CRIMINAL OFFENCES Chapter 9 LEVELS OF OFFENCES In the Canadian legal system we have three levels of criminal offences. Summary Conviction Offences Indictable Offences Hybrid Offences LEVELS OF OFFENCES:
More informationCrimes (Sexual Offences) Act 1991
No. 8/1991 TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 PRELIMINARY Section 1. Purposes 2. Commencement PART 2 AMENDMENT OF THE CRIMES ACT 1958 3. New Subdivisions (8) to (8F) inserted in Division 1 of Part I (8) Sexual
More informationSEX WORKERS AND SEXUAL ASSAULT: THE HIDDEN CRIME
SEX WORKERS AND SEXUAL ASSAULT: THE HIDDEN CRIME Madeleine Bridgett Sex Workers Outreach Project, NSW Julie Robinson Eastern and Central Sexual Assault Service, NSW Paper presented at the Restoration for
More informationRevision 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 informationIN THE YOUTH COURT AT AUCKLAND CRN: [2017] NZYC 375. NEW ZEALAND POLICE Prosecutor. H C Young Person
NOTE: NO PUBLICATION OF A REPORT OF THIS PROCEEDING IS PERMITTED UNDER S 438 OF THE CHILDREN, YOUNG PERSONS, AND THEIR FAMILIES ACT 1989, EXCEPT WITH THE LEAVE OF THE COURT THAT HEARD THE PROCEEDINGS,
More informationNumber 2 of Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017
Number 2 of 2017 Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 Number 2 of 2017 CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES) ACT 2017 CONTENTS Section 1. Short title and commencement 2. Interpretation PART 1 PRELIMINARY
More informationNEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17. The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006
NEW ZEALAND LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2017] NZLCDT 39 LCDT 023/17 UNDER The Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 BETWEEN HAWKE S BAY STANDARDS COMMITTEE Applicant AND KRIS ANTHONY DENDER
More informationDOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL
DOMESTIC ABUSE (SCOTLAND) BILL FINANCIAL MEMORANDUM INTRODUCTION 1. As required under Rule 9.3.2 of the Parliament s Standing Orders, this Financial Memorandum is published to accompany the Domestic Abuse
More informationLEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015
LEVEL 6 - UNIT 18 CRIMINAL LITIGATION SUGGESTED ANSWERS JANUARY 2015 Note to Candidates and Tutors: The purpose of the suggested answers is to provide students and tutors with guidance as to the key points
More informationBladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 2 Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons 3 Possession Bladed Articles and Offensive Weapons
More informationSUPREME 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 informationSexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE
Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape 9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) Assault by penetration 13 Sexual
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AR 115/10 In the matter between:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, PIETERMARITZBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA AR 115/10 In the matter between: RONSON PILLAY APPELLANT v THE STATE RESPONDENT JUDGMENT ON SENTENCE Date of hearing: 28 June
More information2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works
Page 1 2010 CarswellOnt 8109 R. v. Allen Her Majesty the Queen against Andre Allen Ontario Court of Justice M. Then J.P. Heard: October 19, 2010 Judgment: October 19, 2010 Docket: None given. Thomson Reuters
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Attorney-General for the State of Queensland v Kynuna [2019] QSC 76 PARTIES: ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND (applicant) v DIRK GREGORY KYNUNA (respondent)
More informationCHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT (CHAPTER 38)
CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT (CHAPTER 38) Act 1 of 1993 REVISED EDITION1994 REVISEDEDITION 2001 20 of 2001 An Act to consolidate the law relating to children and young persons. [21st March 1993] PART
More informationR v DOBSON & NORRIS. Central Criminal Court. 4 January Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy
R v DOBSON & NORRIS Central Criminal Court 4 January 2012 Sentencing Remarks of Mr Justice Treacy The Offence 1. The murder of Stephen Lawrence on the night of 22 nd April 1993 was a terrible and evil
More informationCRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (N0. 2) ACT 2000 BERMUDA 2000 : 23 CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (N0. 2) ACT 2000
BERMUDA 2000 : 23 [Date of Assent 11 July 2000] [Operative Date ] WHEREAS it is expedient to amend the Criminal Code Act 1907 to make further provision with respect to sex offenders and violent offenders:
More informationDEFINITIVE GUIDELINE. Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline
DEFINITIVE GUIDELINE Sexual Offences Definitive Guideline Contents Applicability of guideline 7 Rape and assault offences 9 Rape Sexual Offences Act 2003 (section 1) 9 Assault by penetration Sexual Offences
More informationTable of Contents. Dedication... iii Preface... v Table of Cases... xv. A. General Principles... 1
Table of Contents Dedication... iii Preface... v Table of Cases... xv Chapter 1 Substantive Criminal Law A. General Principles... 1 1. Causation... 1 (a) Causation for Impaired Driving Causing Bodily Harm/Death...
More informationSENTENCES AND SENTENCING
SENTENCES AND SENTENCING Most people have views about sentencing and many people have strong views about individual sentences but unfortunately many of those views are uninformed. Public defenders, more
More informationSUPREME 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