R v Cox

[2010] QCA 262

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Cox [2010] QCA 262

PARTIES:

R
v
COX, Stephen Brian
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 106 of 2009
DC No 1080 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 October 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 August 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES NOT AMOUNTING TO MISCARRIAGE – OTHER IRREGULARITIES – where appellant was charged with misappropriation and fraud – where prosecution did not disclose a substantial number of documents to the appellant until the ninth day of the trial, contrary to s 590AB(2)(b) Criminal Code – where appellant represented himself at trial and was granted a three day adjournment to consider the documents – where appellant elected for the trial to continue – where the documents did not tend to support the appellant’s defence that two other persons were responsible for the misappropriation – whether the late supply of the documents amounted to a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where appellant was charged with 11 counts of misappropriation with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation – where appellant convicted of the counts of misappropriation but acquitted of the fraud – where appellant’s head sentence was six years’ imprisonment, taking into account 10 months spent in custody for other offences – where appellant breached his bail, showed no remorse and did not plead guilty – whether a notional term of seven years was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 590AB(2)(b)

R v HAU [2009] QCA 165, considered
R v Lim[2004] QCA 172, followed
R v Spizzirri [2001] 2 Qd R 686; [2000] QCA 469, considered
R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24, followed
R v Wheeler & Sorrensen[2002] QCA 223, followed

COUNSEL:

C Reid for the appellant
M J Copley SC, with B J Power, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the appellant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1]      McMURDO P: I agree with Chesterman JA's reasons for dismissing this appeal against conviction and refusing the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

[2] The sole ground of appeal against conviction concerns the prosecution's non-disclosure, until the ninth day of Mr Cox's trial, of the documents exhibited to the affidavit of Lauren Skarott, sworn and filed in this Court on 12 August 2010. I note that Mr Cox was self-represented from the commencement of his trial, apparently by choice. It is most concerning that the prosecution did not…