R v Crawford - [2020] QCA 68

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Crawford [2020] QCA 68

PARTIES:

R
v
CRAWFORD, Aaron John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 234 of 2018
SC No 803 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time (Sentence)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 May 2018 (Burns J)

DELIVERED ON:

9 April 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 August 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Henry and Bradley JJ

ORDERS:

1.   The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused.

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

3.   The application for leave to adduce new evidence in the proposed appeal is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant filed his application to appeal against sentence approximately three and a half months after the sentence was imposed – where the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence – where the applicant deposed that as a result of extensive media coverage of his sentence, he was held in protective custody and had no communication with his solicitor for two weeks – where the applicant deposed that once he was transferred to a standard high security protection unit, it took him two weeks to “settle, speak with my family and come to terms with my son returning to New Zealand” and he had no correspondence from his solicitor – where the further delay of two and a half months was unexplained – whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant was convicted on pleas of guilty and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of ten years for manslaughter and two years for interfering with a corpse – where the applicant was originally charged with murder – where the applicant offered to plead guilty to manslaughter soon after he was charged, but on a version of facts that falsely minimised his culpability – where one of the applicant’s co-offenders subsequently pleaded guilty to murder – where the applicant’s offer to plead guilty to manslaughter was then accepted by the Crown – where this plea was entered two days before the applicant’s trial for murder was listed to commence – where the sentencing judge took the applicant’s plea of guilty into account, “late though it is” – whether the sentencing judge erred by characterising the applicant’s plea as “late” – whether the applicant’s plea of guilty was entered at the first reasonable opportunity

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant submitted that the sentencing process miscarried because the sentencing judge did not have all of the information…

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 Crawford

Details

AGLC: R v Crawford [2020] QCA 68
Case: [2020] QCA 68
Decision Date: 9 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Crawford, the applicant sought to appeal against his sentence and to adduce new evidence that was not before the sentencing judge. The applicant had been convicted on pleas of guilty to manslaughter and interfering with a corpse, and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. The applicant filed his application to appeal against sentence approximately three and a half months after the sentence was imposed and applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence. The applicant deposed that extensive media coverage of his sentence resulted in him being held in protective custody and having no communication with his solicitor for two weeks. He further deposed that it took him two weeks to "settle, speak with my family and come to terms with my son returning to New Zealand" and he had no correspondence from his solicitor. The further delay of two and a half months was unexplained.

The court was required to decide whether it should exercise its discretion to extend the time for the applicant to appeal against sentence. The court also needed to determine whether the sentencing judge erred by characterising the applicant’s plea as “late” and whether the applicant’s plea of guilty was entered at the first reasonable opportunity. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the sentencing process miscarried because the sentencing judge did not have all of the information that was relevant to the formulation of the appropriate sentence. The applicant sought to adduce evidence of three assaults upon him by other prisoners while he was in prison, a letter of apology he wrote to the family of the deceased, his history of drug use and sexual abuse he suffered as a child, and evidence demonstrating that he was driven to rehabilitate himself in order to reunite with his son.

The court held that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal was refused. The court found that the applicant’s delay in filing his application for an appeal against sentence was unexplained and that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also held that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused. The court found that the sentencing judge did not err in characterising the applicant’s plea as “late” and that the applicant’s plea of guilty was entered at the first reasonable opportunity. The court further held that the application for leave to adduce new evidence in the proposed appeal was refused. The court found that the sentencing process did not miscarry and that a more lenient sentence would not be appropriate in light of all the material available to the sentencing judge and all the new evidence sought to be adduced. The court found that the new evidence was not relevant to the formulation of the appropriate sentence and that it did not warrant a fresh exercise of the sentencing discretion.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused.

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

3. The application for leave to adduce new evidence in the proposed appeal is 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 Crawford [2020] QCA 68
PARTIES:	R v CRAWFORD, Aaron John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 234 of 2018 SC No 803 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time (Sentence) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 29 May 2018 (Burns J)
DELIVERED ON:	9 April 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 August 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser JA and Henry and Bradley JJ
ORDERS:	1. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused. 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. 3. The application for leave to adduce new evidence in the proposed appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant filed his application to appeal against sentence approximately three and a half months after the sentence was imposed – where the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence – where the applicant deposed that as a result of extensive media coverage of his sentence, he was held in protective custody and had no communication with his solicitor for two weeks – where the applicant deposed that once he was transferred to a standard high security protection unit, it took him two weeks to “settle, speak with my family and come to terms with my son returning to New Zealand” and he had no correspondence from his solicitor – where the further delay of two and a half months was unexplained – whether the Court should exercise the discretion to extend time CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – JUDGE ACTED ON WRONG PRINCIPLE – where the applicant was convicted on pleas of guilty and sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of ten years for manslaughter and two years for interfering with a corpse – where the applicant was originally charged with murder – where the applicant offered to plead guilty to manslaughter soon after he was charged, but on a version of facts that falsely minimised his culpability – where one of the applicant’s co-offenders subsequently pleaded guilty to murder – where the applicant’s offer to plead guilty to manslaughter was then accepted by the Crown – where this plea was entered two days before the applicant’s trial for murder was listed to commence – where the sentencing judge took the applicant’s plea of guilty into account, “late though it is” – whether the sentencing judge erred by characterising the applicant’s plea as “late” – whether the applicant’s plea of guilty was entered at the first reasonable opportunity CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – POWERS OF APPELLATE COURT – TO ADMIT NEW EVIDENCE – where the applicant submitted that the sentencing process miscarried because the sentencing judge did not have all of the information…