Duffy v Police

[2009] QDC 296

[2009] QDC 296

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION

JUDGE RICHARDS

No 95 of 2009

TAMMY MAREE DUFFY	Appellant
and
POLICE	Respondent
IPSWICH ..DATE 09/09/2009
JUDGMENT

1-1

HER HONOUR: This is an appeal for the sentence imposed on the

1

24th of June 2009, for one count of wilful damage under the

Corrective Services Act.

The appellant is a sentenced prisoner serving a sentence at

the Brisbane Women's Correctional Centre. She was in a cell	10
of the detention unit on the 18th of April, this year, for four days. When she was released it was noted that there was graffiti written in black marker on the wall, and she had a marker.
20
The damage was $300 for cleaning and repainting. Although it's accepted that she didn't cause all of the writing on the walls, so the damage would have been something less than $300 for her contribution to the writing on the wall.
30
She pleaded guilty, and at the time of the sentence it was
submitted that she suffers from a genetic disorder, and had
significant behavioural problems and emotional problems as a
result; that, although she was due to parole, in fact,
overdue for parole, she was unlikely to get parole because of	40
various matters, but, not least of which, I imagine, is that her behaviour in gaol is not always perfect, thus her time in the detention unit.
She has been seeing a psychologist in gaol on a regular basis.	50

She was medication compliant at the time, and had been making an effort to do programs that were offered to her in gaol that were within her capacity given that she had border line 1-2 JUDGMENT 60

1

intellectual functioning.

The Magistrate accepted that her intellectual difficulties had contributed in some respect to her offending, but decided that a cumulative sentence of six months was appropriate.	10
It's conceded by the Crown that six months' imprisonment is
manifestly excessive, and that's clearly so given the damage
caused as a result of the offending, and the type of
offending. The offending could only be described as minor,	20
and it's conceded by the Crown that a sentence of six weeks' imprisonment would have been more appropriate. The only question is whether it should be made cumulative or concurrent.
30
In my view, as the matter now falls for sentencing afresh, six
weeks' imprisonment is an appropriate sentence. However,
given the likelihood that her parole will not be granted, that
that term of imprisonment should be served concurrently. So,
the appeal is allowed. The sentence is set aside, and a term	40
of imprisonment of six weeks concurrent is imposed. The parole eligibility date can stay for what it's worth.
MR KISSICK: This matter is legally aided, but I understand my
instructions are that costs are to be sought on behalf of	50
Legal Aid.

HER HONOUR: All right. I'll order that costs-----
MR KISSICK: Has agreed to assist. 1-3 JUDGMENT 60

HER HONOUR: The respondent pay the appellant's costs to be assessed unless otherwise agreed.

10

MR KISSICK: Thank you, your Honour.

-----

20

30

40

50

1-4 JUDGMENT 60