R v Chang-Time

[2017] QCA 92

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Chang-Time [2017] QCA 92

PARTIES:

R
v
CHANG-TIME, Conrad Jude
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 235 of 2016
DC No 362 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 4 August 2016; Date of Sentence: 5 August 2016

DELIVERED ON:

16 May 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 April 2017

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Morrison JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appeal is dismissed.

2.   The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PROSECUTION NOT HELD TO PARTICULARS – where the particulars were amended during the trial after the evidence was concluded – where the trial judge directed the jury in relation to the amended particulars – where there was no complaint about the direction of the trial judge during the trial or on appeal – whether there was a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – INTERVENTION OF TRIAL JUDGE DURING THE TRIAL – where the trial judge asked various questions throughout the trial – where these questions related to evidence or directed the attention of witnesses to the content of the examination – whether there was a miscarriage of justice occasioned by his Honour’s questions

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the appellant was convicted of extortion – where the appellant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment – where the appellant claimed that the trial judge failed to have proper regard to several matters relevant to penalty – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Cifuentes[2006] QCA 566, followed, applied
R v Taouk[2012] QCA 211, applied

COUNSEL:

The appellant/applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Nardone for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. SOFRONOFF P:  The appellant appeals against his conviction for demanding a sum of money, without reasonable cause, with intent to gain a benefit for himself and another and with a threat to cause a detriment to FP.  He was charged with a co-accused, one Thomas Conti.

2. The complainant, Mr FP, was the neighbour of the appellant’s co-accused, Conti.  Mr FP said that on 28 October 2014 he began to receive phone calls from Conti, who asked to borrow money from Mr FP and also asked for other money “for B’s father”.  He wanted $30,000.  It was put to Mr FP, in a variety of ways, that Conti and the appellant knew that he, Mr FP, had in some manner dealt indecently with B.

3. At the time, according to Mr FP, he had met B, a boy of 11…