R v Cornwell

[2003] QCA 491

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Cornwell [2003] QCA 491
PARTIES:	R v CORNWELL, Patricia Anne (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 269 of 2003 DC No 173 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX	7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT – OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – pleaded guilty to armed robbery and one attempt – whether adequate explanation for failing to file sentence application in time – whether prospects of success on appeal warrant extension of time
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on her own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: Yes, Miss Cornwell, that statement by Mr Copley on behalf of the prosecution - or the Crown - seems to me to be accurate. The likely range of sentence in this case was three to five years. You got three and a half and you did two armed robberies, or attempts in the second one. And you have not really got a prospect of getting the sentence reduced on appeal. In those circumstances, we ordinarily would not give you an extension of time within which to appeal but if you have anything else to tell us, let us know now.

10

PRISONER: My mind's gone blank, your Honour, I'm sorry.

McPHERSON JA: Yes well I am sure it is very stressful. But to be quite frank, I do not think you have got a prospect of getting the sentence reduced. I would recommend that you try	20
it as hard as you can to carry out what you are required to do in prison. No doubt get the benefit of parole at some time.
Having heard the applicant and counsel for the respondent in
this matter, I am not satisfied that the sentence imposed in	30
this case is pitched at such a level that a Court of Appeal,
confronted by an application for leave to appeal against
sentence, would interfere with it at all. I am satisfied that
it is not an instance of an excessive penalty being imposed,
but rather one that follows the ordinary course in cases of	40
this kind, regrettable as they are.
In the circumstances, I would refuse the application to extend
the time within which to apply for leave to appeal against
sentence.	50
CHESTERMAN J: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.
McPHERSON JA: That is the order of the Court. 2 60

-----

10

20

30

40

50

3   60