Ellicott v Day [1996] QCA 431
1
COURT OF APPEAL [1996] QCA 431
PINCUS JA
DERRINGTON J
AMBROSE J
CA No 374 of 1996
ELLICOTT
v.
STEPHEN TROY DAY Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 25/10/96
JUDGMENT
-- 1 of 3 --
251096 T13/JB M/T COA263/96
2 JUDGMENT
PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against
sentence, in rather complicated circumstances. The applicant
was sentenced to imprisonment in the Magistrates Court on 5
August 1996 in respect of an offence of stealing. The sentence
was six months cumulative with a recommendation for
consideration for parole after six months. It is necessary to
say that the head sentence of six months was not, in the
circumstances, excessive, nor is it argued to be. It was an
ordinary bag-snatching case, that is, the applicant took a
handbag which was put down between two people and ran off with
it. In view of the applicant's prior criminal history, in these
circumstances no complaint could be made of that. What Mrs
Richards, for the applicant contends is that the recommendation
for parole, which was one for consideration after six months,
was too harsh. She contends that the Magistrate should, in the
circumstances, have made a recommendation for parole at an
earlier date and she suggests that what we should presently do
is to recommend that the applicant be eligible for consideration
for parole immediately.
The application of the relevant sections, and in particular
section 157(3), is a matter of considerable difficulty and the
Court had intended that further submissions would be made in
relation to it. However, in the circumstances, there being in
substance an agreement that the order proposed by Mrs Richards
should be made, I would favour granting the application,
allowing the appeal, and replacing the recommendation with
respect to parole, made by the Magistrate, by a recommendation
that the applicant be eligible for release on parole
immediately.
-- 2 of 3 --
251096 T13/JB M/T COA263/96
3 JUDGMENT
DERRINGTON J: Yes, I agree.
AMBROSE J: Yes, I agree.
PINCUS JA: That will be the order.
-----
-- 3 of 3 --
Official source: https://www.sclqld.org.au/caselaw/QCA/1996/431