Brooks v The King

Case [2025] SASCA 84


SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Court of Appeal: Criminal)

BROOKS v THE KING

[2025] SASCA 84

Judgment of the Court of Appeal  (ex tempore)

(The Honourable Acting Chief Justice Livesey and the Honourable Justice David)

31 July 2025

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

This is an application for permission to appeal against sentence.  The applicant requires an extension of time of nearly eight years.

The applicant pleaded guilty to attempting to escape lawful custody, contrary to ss 254(1) and 270A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA), illegally using a motor vehicle, contrary to s 86A(1) of the CLCA, and damaging property, contrary to s 85(2) of the CLCA.

The offending concerned an attempt to escape Port Augusta Prison using a truck parked inside the perimeter of the prison.

At the time of the offending the applicant was already serving a sentence of 29 years, four months and 10 days, for which there was a non-parole period of 23 years.

The applicant’s grounds of appeal were primarily concerned with the imposition of a 12-month licence disqualification.

Held (Livesey ACJ and David JA), refusing an extension of time and refusing permission to appeal:

1.The Court has no discretion to impose an order different from a 12-month licence disqualification.

2.The Court has no discretion to order that the period of disqualification operate so that it expires before release from prison.

3.There is accordingly no merit in the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal.  There is consequently no utility in granting an extension of time nor granting permission to appeal against sentence.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 85(2), 86A, 254(1), 270A(1); Joint Criminal Rules 2022 (SA) r 193.1(3)(c); Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) s 169B, referred to.
Austin v The King [2023] SASCA 64; Freeman v Police (2006) 180 A Crim R 524; Gikas v Police [1999] SASC 139; Lowe v The King [2025] SASCA 24; R v Henderson (2023) 142 SASR 507; R v Koch [2015] SASCFC 31; R v Sprecher (2015) 123 SASR 15; Trewren v The King [2023] SASCA 100, considered.

BROOKS v THE KING
[2025] SASCA 84

Court of Appeal – Criminal: Livesey ACJ and David JA

THE COURT (ex tempore):

Introduction

  1. By notice of appeal dated 30 June 2025, the applicant seeks permission to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court by Judge McEwen on 10 November 2017.  The applicant requires an extension of time of nearly eight years.

  2. On 20 September 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty to the following offences:

    ·Attempt to escape lawful custody, contrary to ss 254(1) and 270A(1) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) (the CLCA);

    ·Illegal use of a motor vehicle, contrary to s 86A(1) of the CLCA; and

    ·Damage property, contrary to s 85(2) of the CLCA.

  3. At the time of the offending, the applicant was already serving a sentence of 29 years, four months and 10…

Continue reading Brooks v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Brooks v The King [2025] SASCA 84
Case
[2025] SASCA 84
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Brooks, sought to appeal against a sentence imposed by the court. The appeal was heard by Acting Livesey CJ and David J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had any arguable grounds for appeal against the sentence, and consequently, whether an extension of time to lodge the appeal should be granted.

The court found that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit. As a result, the court determined that there was no utility in granting an extension of time to file the appeal or in granting permission to appeal against the sentence.

The applications for an extension of time and for permission to appeal were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

As there is no merit in the applicant’s proposed appeal grounds, there is no utility in granting an extension of time nor, for that matter, granting permission to appeal against sentence.Conclusion The applications for an extension of time and for permission to appeal are dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.