R v Appoo - [2006] QCA 183

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Appoo [2006] QCA 183

PARTIES:

R
v
APPOO, Ashley John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 82 of 2006
SC No 374 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

29 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 May 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Williams & Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for the extension of time within which to appeal sentence and conviction is refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm – where an indefinite sentence was refused – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment – where the application was 17 months out of time - whether an appeal against conviction or sentence would have any prospect of success – whether the application for extension of time should be granted

The following cases were cited:
R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174; CA No 295 of 2001, CA No 329 of 2001, 17 May 2002
R v MacKenzie [2004] QCA 324; CA No 353 of 1999, 20 October 2000; (2000) 113 A Crim R 534

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf with L Appoo assisting
S G Bain for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: On the 23rd of December, 2004, the applicant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter and a concurrent 10 year term for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm. He had pleaded guilty on the 11th of October, 2004.

The Crown sought the imposition of an indefinite sentence which was eventually refused. Prior to the sentencing, the Mental Health Court had considered the applicant's condition at the time of committing the offences and had determined that the applicant was not then suffering from unsoundness of mind or a state of diminished responsibility.

The offences were committed in relation to a married couple. The applicant killed the husband and did grievous bodily harm to the wife. All of this involved brutal attacks upon them. Support for the sentences imposed by the learned sentencing Judge may be gathered from Bates v. Baker, 2002, Queensland Court of Appeal 174.

On 3rd April, 2006, the applicant filed an application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The application was approximately 17 months out of time. There was no sworn material explaining the lateness of the application.

The grounds set out in the application for extension of time read "Incorrect information from witness", although that…

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 Appoo

Details

AGLC: R v Appoo [2006] QCA 183
Case: [2006] QCA 183
Decision Date: 29 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, who had pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm, was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment. He applied for an extension of time to appeal his conviction and sentence, which was 17 months out of the statutory time limit. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around whether an appeal against either the conviction or the sentence would have any prospect of success, and if the application for an extension of time should be granted.

The court examined the criteria for granting an extension of time under the Queensland legal framework. It considered the extent to which the applicant had delayed in lodging the appeal, the reasons for the delay, and the merits of the potential appeal. The court noted that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay. Furthermore, the court assessed the merits of the appeal and concluded that there were no grounds for allowing an appeal against conviction or sentence. The court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, and the applicant's plea of guilty negated any potential grounds for appeal against conviction.

Given the lack of merit in the potential appeal and the substantial delay in lodging the application, the court decided that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The court held that the delay was unreasonable and that granting the extension would not serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the applicant's application for an extension of time was dismissed, and no appeal against the sentence or conviction would be entertained.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for the extension of time within which to appeal sentence and conviction 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 Appoo [2006] QCA 183
PARTIES:	R v APPOO, Ashley John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 82 of 2006 SC No 374 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	29 May 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	29 May 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams & Holmes JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for the extension of time within which to appeal sentence and conviction is refused
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm – where an indefinite sentence was refused – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment – where the application was 17 months out of time - whether an appeal against conviction or sentence would have any prospect of success – whether the application for extension of time should be granted The following cases were cited: R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174; CA No 295 of 2001, CA No 329 of 2001, 17 May 2002 R v MacKenzie [2004] QCA 324; CA No 353 of 1999, 20 October 2000; (2000) 113 A Crim R 534
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf with L Appoo assisting S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf with L Appoo assisting Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent