R v Boyd - [2013] QCA 335

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Boyd [2013] QCA 335

PARTIES:

R
v
BOYD, Aaron James Lee
aka FALLE
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 210 of 2013
SC No 73 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 October 2013

JUDGES:

Holmes, Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted, on his own guilty plea, of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and parole eligibility was fixed at two years and eight months from the date of sentence – where the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is three and a half months late – whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time within which to appeal against his sentence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671

Puschenjak v Wade[2002] QCA 190, cited
R v Ikin[2007] QCA 224, considered
R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied
R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, considered
R v Westphal[2009] QCA 223, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Morrison JA and the order he proposes.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

MORRISON JA: On 28 March 2013, the applicant was convicted, on his own plea of guilty, of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug (methylamphetamine and ecstasy), over a period of 10 months in 2010.

The applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and a parole eligibility date was fixed at 28 November 2015. That is, two years and eight months from the date of the sentence.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

Applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were filed at the Townsville Correctional Centre on 14 August 2013. The applicant should have filed his application for leave to appeal against sentence within one calendar month of the sentence being imposed upon him.[1] Consequently, that is a delay of three and a half months.
[1]Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671.

On a consideration of an application for extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal, it is well…

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 Boyd

Details

AGLC: R v Boyd [2013] QCA 335
Case: [2013] QCA 335
Decision Date: 8 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Boyd, the applicant, Boyd, had previously pleaded guilty to trafficking in a dangerous drug and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at two years and eight months. Boyd now sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was three and a half months past the statutory time limit. The central legal issue was whether Boyd should be granted an extension of time to appeal his sentence.

The court considered the relevant statutory provisions governing extensions of time for appeals in Queensland. The court noted that the statutory time limit for seeking leave to appeal is strictly enforced and that extensions of time are only granted in exceptional circumstances. Boyd argued that he had acted promptly once he realised his mistake in not appealing, and that there were exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. However, the court found that Boyd's delay was significant and that he had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension. The court emphasised that the strict time limits for appeals are essential for the finality and efficiency of the legal process.

As a result, the court refused Boyd's application for an extension of time to appeal his sentence. The court concluded that the delay was too substantial, and no exceptional circumstances were present to justify an extension. The court upheld the original sentence and denied Boyd's request for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Boyd [2013] QCA 335
PARTIES:	R v BOYD, Aaron James Lee aka FALLE (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 210 of 2013 SC No 73 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville
DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 October 2013
JUDGES:	Holmes, Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted, on his own guilty plea, of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and parole eligibility was fixed at two years and eight months from the date of sentence – where the applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence is three and a half months late – whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time within which to appeal against his sentence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671 Puschenjak v Wade[2002] QCA 190, cited R v Ikin[2007] QCA 224, considered R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, considered R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied R v Ungvari[2010] QCA 134, considered R v Westphal[2009] QCA 223, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D R Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent