R v Allen - [2018] QCA 126

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Allen [2018] QCA 126

PARTIES:

R
v
ALLEN, John William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 22 of 2018
SC No 97 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 8 September 2017 (Holmes CJ)

DELIVERED ON:

19 June 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 June 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a nine and a half month period – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal four months out of time – where the applicant explained his delay on being self-represented, unaware of his rights and contacting Legal Aid directly before the Christmas-New Year office closure – whether the applicant had established a good reason for the delay in applying for leave to appeal – whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a nine and a half month period – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where the applicant had a minor criminal history including offending while on bail – where the applicant has health issues – where the applicant is liable to deportation to New Zealand once the custodial part of his sentence has been served – where the applicant emphasised at the hearing that he was seeking a lower sentence on compassionate grounds – where the applicant had attempted to vacate the plea – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Blumke[2015] QCA 264, cited
R v C’Ward[2014] QCA 15, cited
R v Mikula[2015] QCA 102, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Kovac for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Gotterson JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: The applicant, John William Allen, was sentenced in the Supreme Court at Townsville on 8 September 2017. The offence of which he had been convicted was one of trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a nine and a half month period between the beginning of November 2014 and mid-August 2015. The conviction followed upon a plea of guilty to the offence in March 2017. The delay in sentencing arose principally from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Allen

Details

AGLC: R v Allen [2018] QCA 126
Case: [2018] QCA 126
Decision Date: 19 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Allen, the applicant appealed against his sentence, which was imposed following his guilty plea to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a nine and a half month period. The applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. He filed an application for leave to appeal four months out of time, attributing his delay to self-representation, unawareness of his rights, and contacting Legal Aid directly before the Christmas-New Year office closure. The central legal issues revolved around whether the applicant had established a good reason for the delay and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time.

The court examined the principles governing the grant or refusal of extensions of time for appeals. It noted that while the applicant had a minor criminal history and health issues, and was liable to deportation to New Zealand upon completion of his sentence, these factors did not constitute a sufficient basis for an extension of time. The court found that the applicant's explanation for the delay was insufficient to warrant an extension, as he had not acted with due diligence. Furthermore, the court held that the interests of justice did not favour an extension, given the substantial period of time that had elapsed since the original deadline for filing the application.

Consequently, the application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The applicant’s argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive was not addressed, as the court did not grant the extension of time required to pursue the appeal against the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Allen [2018] QCA 126
PARTIES:	R v ALLEN, John William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 22 of 2018 SC No 97 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Sentence: 8 September 2017 (Holmes CJ)
DELIVERED ON:	19 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 June 2018
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Henry J
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a nine and a half month period – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal four months out of time – where the applicant explained his delay on being self-represented, unaware of his rights and contacting Legal Aid directly before the Christmas-New Year office closure – whether the applicant had established a good reason for the delay in applying for leave to appeal – whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking in the dangerous drug methylamphetamine over a nine and a half month period – where the applicant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where the applicant had a minor criminal history including offending while on bail – where the applicant has health issues – where the applicant is liable to deportation to New Zealand once the custodial part of his sentence has been served – where the applicant emphasised at the hearing that he was seeking a lower sentence on compassionate grounds – where the applicant had attempted to vacate the plea – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive R v Blumke[2015] QCA 264, cited R v C’Ward[2014] QCA 15, cited R v Mikula[2015] QCA 102, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D Kovac for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent