In R v Benecke [2024] QCA 86, the applicant, Paul Anthony Benecke, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court on 31 July 2023. Benecke had pleaded guilty to the offence of arson, and two Commonwealth offences related to using a carriage service to make threats and improper use of an emergency call service. These offences occurred while he was on parole for a previous manslaughter conviction. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for the arson offence and six months for each Commonwealth offence, with the sentences to commence concurrently with his existing nine-year manslaughter sentence.
The applicant argued that the parole eligibility date, which was set at the full-time expiry of his manslaughter sentence, was manifestly excessive. He also sought to introduce further evidence, claiming errors in the pre-sentence custody certificate, which incorrectly detailed the sentence he was serving. The court acknowledged the errors but found that the sentencing judge did not rely on the pre-sentence custody certificate, instead considering the totality of Benecke's previous sentences and his criminal history.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. Benecke's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was granted, but the appeal was dismissed.