R v Doyle - [2011] QCA 14

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Doyle [2011] QCA 14

PARTIES:

R
v
DOYLE, Michael John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 278 of 2010
DC No 206 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

11 February 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Chesterman and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was late in filing a sentence application – where applicant suffered mental health issues including agoraphobia, anxiety, depression and panic attacks – where the applicant had breached a suspended sentence imposed by the District Court for various offences including entering premises, stealing, burglary and wilful damage – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the applicant’s mental health challenges should have been referred to by the District Court – whether mental health issues should operate to reduce the sentence

Channon v R (1978) 20 ALR 1; [1978] FCA 16, considered
R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, considered
R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

[1] CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of White JA. I agree that the application should be refused, for those reasons.

[2] CHESTERMAN JA: I agree that the application to extend time within which to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by White JA.

[3] WHITE JA: Michael John Doyle has applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the District Court at Maroochydore on 17 April 2008. His application is dated 16 November 2010. He was required to file his sentence appeal within one calendar month of sentence being passed upon him. He is thus two years and six months out of time.

[4] The applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of two years for various entering premises, stealing and burglary offences and one year for offences of wilful damage and stealing between 2006 and 2007, all to be served concurrently. The applicant had breached a suspended sentence imposed on 20 September 2005 of which 16 months remained to be served. Her Honour ordered that that sentence be activated and the applicant serve the whole of the 16 months cumulatively on the other sentences.

[5] To reflect that the applicant had served 192 days - nearly six and a half months - in undeclarable custody, her Honour set a parole eligibility date of 20 December 2008.…

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 Doyle

Details

AGLC: R v Doyle [2011] QCA 14
Case: [2011] QCA 14
Decision Date: 11/02/2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Doyle, appealed against the sentence imposed by the District Court, contending that it was manifestly excessive and that his mental health issues should have been taken into account. The applicant, who had a history of offences including entering premises, stealing, burglary, and wilful damage, had breached a suspended sentence. The applicant had filed his sentence application late due to mental health issues such as agoraphobia, anxiety, depression, and panic attacks. The court needed to determine whether the delay in filing the application was justified, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the applicant's mental health issues warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The court examined the grounds for the appeal and the delay in filing the application. It noted that the applicant's mental health issues did not justify the delay, as the application could have been filed earlier. The court also assessed whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold the rule of law. The court further considered whether the District Court should have referred the applicant's mental health issues to a relevant authority. It concluded that the District Court was not obligated to do so, as the applicant had not raised the issue of mental health during the sentencing process.

The court denied the application for an appeal and a new trial. The applicant's mental health issues did not justify the delay in filing the application, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for proportionality in sentencing. The court also noted that the District Court was not required to refer the applicant's mental health issues to a relevant authority, as the applicant had not raised the issue during the sentencing process. The final orders were that the application was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Doyle [2011] QCA 14
PARTIES:	R v DOYLE, Michael John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 278 of 2010 DC No 206 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	11 February 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2011
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Chesterman and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was late in filing a sentence application – where applicant suffered mental health issues including agoraphobia, anxiety, depression and panic attacks – where the applicant had breached a suspended sentence imposed by the District Court for various offences including entering premises, stealing, burglary and wilful damage – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the applicant’s mental health challenges should have been referred to by the District Court – whether mental health issues should operate to reduce the sentence Channon v R (1978) 20 ALR 1; [1978] FCA 16, considered R v Donald [2000] QCA 399, considered R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, considered R v Vaughan [2005] QCA 348, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent