SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
| S APCR 2015 139 | |
| PAUL EVANS (a pseudonym)[1] | Applicant |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification of the victim of the sexual offending, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.
---
JUDGES: | REDLICH and BEACH JJA | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | On the papers | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 18 February 2016 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2016] VSCA 11 | |
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: | DPP v [Evans] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Murphy, 13 May 2011) | |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – Delay of more than four years – Explanation for delay unsatisfactory – Merits of proposed appeal – No reasonable prospect of success of proposed appeal – Application refused.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| No appearances |
REDLICH JA
BEACH JA:
Introduction
On 6 April 2011, following an eight-day trial in the County Court, the applicant was found guilty by a jury of seven charges of rape, two charges of attempted rape, one charge of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 and one charge of common assault. Following a plea hearing on 5 May 2011, the applicant was sentenced on 13 May 2011 as follows:
Charge on Indictment
Offence
Maximum
Sentence
Cumulation
1
Rape
25 years
4 years 6 months
–
3
Rape
25 years
6 years
12 months
5
Rape
25 years
6 years
12 months
7
Attempted rape
20 years
4 years
3 months
9
Rape
25 years
5 years
12 months
11
Indecent act with a child under 16
10 years
18 months
–
12
Attempted rape
20 years
3 years 6 months
3 months
14
Rape
25 years
5 years
12 months
16
Common assault
5 years
7 days
–
17
Rape
25 years
6 years 6 months
Base
19
Rape
25 years
5 years
12 months
Total Effective Sentence
12 years
Non-Parole Period
8 years 9 months
The Applicant was sentenced as a serious sexual offender on charges 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17 and 19.
On 16 July 2015, the applicant filed an application on extension of time in which to file a notice of application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The proposed grounds of appeal are as follows:
1.The individual sentences, total effective sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive having regard to the following considerations:
–the absence of relevant prior convictions. The Crown allege a single prior appearance against the applicant which occurred in the Magistrates’ Court at Horsham, when the applicant was fined $150 each on counts of discharging a firearm and carrying a loaded weapon in a public place. These took place over 30 years ago and should be given no weight;
–the applicant’s age;
–the applicant’s public humiliation;
–[the applicant’s] prior contribution to the community; and
–the applicant’s separation from his family and children.
Continue reading Evans v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Evans v The Queen [2016] VSCA 11
- Case
- [2016] VSCA 11
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether the delay in applying for an extension of time was justifiable and whether the proposed appeal had any reasonable prospect of success. The appellant argued that the delay was due to factors that could be considered mitigating, such as his mental health issues and the complexity of his case. The court was required to weigh these arguments against the established principles that govern the extension of time for such applications. The primary consideration was whether the delay was sufficiently explained and whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success if leave were granted.
The court held that the appellant's explanation for the delay was unsatisfactory. It found that the appellant had not provided a compelling justification for the significant lapse in time between the original sentencing and the application for leave to appeal. Furthermore, the court assessed the merits of the proposed appeal and concluded that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The reasoning was based on the lack of significant legal or factual errors in the original proceedings that would warrant a reconsideration of the sentence. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of timely applications in the judicial process and reiterated the stringent requirements for extensions of time in such contexts. The decision underscored the need for clear and compelling justifications for any delays in making applications to the court.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.