R v Bayliss

[1998] QCA 183

[1998] QCA 183

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA
THOMAS J

CA No 447 of 1995a

THE QUEEN

v.

RICHARD BRUCE BAYLISS  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/05/98

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  The applicant was convicted in the District Court at Maroochydore on 13 October 1995 on his own plea of guilty on three counts:  one of breaking, entering and stealing, one of obtaining money by false pretences and one of stealing with a threat of actual violence, all committed on 7 July 1995.  On the first of those counts he was sentenced to two years imprisonment, on the second 12 months imprisonment and on the third seven years imprisonment.  The learned sentencing Judge added a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after three years of that total sentence.

On 25 February 1996 he appeared in person before this Court and argued an application for leave to appeal against those sentences.  This Court refused that application.  Now, several years later, the applicant wishes to re-argue his application.  He says that his psychiatric disorder and treating medication impaired his chance of presenting his appeal on that occasion.  He has submitted a five-page written argument setting out why, in his view, he should be allowed to do this and to have his sentence reduced.  He has produced some further documents including a report by Dr Richards, a psychiatrist, dated 13 May this year which he says supports his right to re-argue the matter and to succeed and he has made some oral submissions to us this morning.

His argument proceeds under a number of misapprehensions.  He thought that the learned sentencing Judge was not advised of his medical and psychiatric history.  That is only true in part.  It is apparent from the court report prepared by the Community Corrections Officer which was before the learned sentencing Judge that the applicant was an abuser of prescription drugs and had been referred to medical practitioners for treatment and counselling.  And the solicitor who appeared for him on the sentence hearing gave details of that addiction.  Dr Richards, in the report to which I referred, says that the applicant was subject to  polysubstance abuse and that he also had a severe borderline personality disorder which led to mutilatory slashing of wrists and lower legs on a number of occasions.  It is true that the learned sentencing Judge was not fully informed of the applicant's psychiatric condition or, as the applicant has pointed out to this Court, that he had been sexually abused as a child.  However, in my view, none of this seems to have much relevance to the appropriate sentence which should have been imposed in this case.  Certainly, in my view, it does not show that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. 

There are some inconsistencies between what the applicant says now and what was said on his behalf to the learned sentencing Judge but there is no reason to think that this was because of his inability to give instructions.  On the contrary, the author of the report to which I referred thought that the applicant was manipulative and deceptive.

Nor is there anything which supports the applicant's contention that, at the time he argued his earlier application to this Court, he was, by reason of pain and pain-relieving drugs, unable to represent himself adequately.  The psychiatric report of Dr Richards says only that, from what the applicant has told him, it is psychiatrically credible that he may not have been able to do so.  On the contrary, as the transcript of argument before this Court reveals, he appeared to be fully aware and articulate and presented a very full argument to this Court.  Moreover, on that occasion, this Court considered everything that could be said in the applicant's favour and nothing presented now throws any further light on that.

There is, in short, nothing in what the applicant has said or written which, if this Court has power to review the sentence, should, in my view, persuade it to do so. 
In those circumstances it is unnecessary to explore the power of this Court under either s.188 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 or pursuant to s. 8 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 to reconsider its refusal of the applicant's earlier application to it. In those circumstances, I would refuse the application.

McPHERSON JA:  I agree that the application should be refused.

THOMAS J:  I agree.

McPHERSON JA:  The application is dismissed.

-----