R v Dobie

Case [2004] QCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Dobie [2004] QCA 140

PARTIES:

R
v
DOBIE, Keith William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 42 of 2001
DC No 2309 of 1998
DC No 349 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Reopening (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 April 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Holmes J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1.    Dismiss the application to re-open the sentence       imposed in the District Court on 7 February 2001
2.    Dismiss the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the refusal of the District       Court on 13 February 2002 to re-open this sentence

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - PARTICULAR GROUNDS - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - OTHER MATTERS - where there was an application to re-open a sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court under s 188(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 - where the applicant contended that the commencement date of his current sentence was a date prior to that identified by the learned sentencing judge pursuant to s 19(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 - whether s 188(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 applied in the circumstances - whether s 19(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 had any application in the circumstances

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19(1)(b)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(1)

R v Abbott [2001] QSC 281; SC No 437 of 1999, 27 June 2001, disapproved

R v McQuire [2003] QCA 523; [2004] 1 Qd R 685; applied

R v Stephenson [2001] QCA 407; CA No 179 of 2001 and CA No 219 of 1993, 2 October 2001, cited

COUNSEL:

P E Smith for applicant
S M Allen for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Terry Fisher & Company for applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

  1. de JERSEY CJ:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Davies JA.  I agree with the orders proposed by His Honour, and with his reasons.

DAVIES JA:

This application

  1. This is a purported application to re-open a sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 7 February 2001.  An appeal against that sentence was dismissed by this Court on 27 April 2001 and an application to re-open it was dismissed by the District Court on 13 February 2002.

  1. The application is purportedly made under s 188(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. However as it seems plain that this is not the court that imposed the sentence, within the meaning of s 188, the only order which this Court could make on that application would be one remitting the application to the District Court either by exercising the powers conferred under s 671B of the Criminal Code or s 68(2)(b) of the

Continue reading R v Dobie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Dobie [2004] QCA 140
Case
[2004] QCA 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Dobie, the applicant sought to reopen a sentence imposed on him in the District Court under s 188(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The applicant argued that the commencement date of his current sentence was prior to that identified by the sentencing judge, as per s 19(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914. The court was required to determine whether s 188(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 applied in these circumstances and whether s 19(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 had any relevance.

The legal issues before the court were twofold: firstly, whether the provisions of s 188(1) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 allowed for the reopening of a sentence under the specified conditions; and secondly, whether s 19(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 influenced the calculation of the sentence's commencement date. The court reviewed relevant precedents, including R v Abbott and R v McQuire, which provided guidance on the interpretation and application of these sections of the relevant statutes. The court found that the statutory provisions did not support the applicant's contention that the sentence should commence on a date earlier than that identified by the sentencing judge.

The court dismissed the application to reopen the sentence and the subsequent application for an extension of time to appeal against the District Court's refusal to reopen the sentence. The reasoning hinged on the interpretation of the statutes and the established legal principles governing sentence calculation and reopening. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid basis for reopening the sentence under the relevant statutory provisions. The decision underscored the importance of accurately determining the commencement date of a sentence and the limited circumstances under which such a date may be subject to change.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Dismiss the application to re-open the sentence imposed in the District Court on 7 February 2001

2. Dismiss the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the refusal of the District Court on 13 February 2002 to re-open this sentence

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.