R v Dozsa - [2000] QCA 10

[R v DOZSA]

[2000] QCA 10

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
BYRNE J

CA No 334 of 1999

THE QUEEN

PAUL C DOZSA Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 04/02/2000

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant appeared on 23 February 1999 without legal representation in the Magistrates Court at Southport, where he pleaded guilty to one count of what is conventionally called fraud in that on 22 February 1999 he dishonestly gained a benefit, namely food and beverage, for himself.

He obtained a meal in a restaurant at Jupiter's Casino without paying the bill of $142.50. As the transcript shows, the Magistrate fully explained to the applicant his right to seek legal representation, but the applicant declined that invitation.

The Magistrate also sought confirmation from the applicant that he understood the charge, and explored in the usual way the validity of the plea of guilty.

The applicant indicated to the Magistrate that he accepted the truth of the Prosecutor's account of the relevant facts which included the applicant's concession to the restaurant management when challenged as he sought to leave that, "He had no money and was unable to pay."

The applicant had a long previous history of similar offending and had frequently been imprisoned. This offence occurred shortly after his release from prison, where he had been serving a term for a similar offence. On this occasion he was sentenced by the Magistrate to nine months' imprisonment to be suspended after three months for an operational period of four years.

He was released after that period of three months and then again similarly offended, leading to his being required to serve the balance of six months.

The applicant appealed to the District Court. That appeal was unsuccessful. It was heard on 10 May 1999 in Toowoomba. One of the applicant's current complaints is that the appeal was brought on four days earlier than expected.

Significantly, however, the Judge who heard the case observed that the applicant had argued his appeal in an articulate, logical way. The learned Judge gave comprehensive, cogent reasons for dismissing the appeal which plainly appears to have been argued fully and robustly. I note the Judge's reference to the applicant's having understood exactly what was going on and his apparent ability to make relevant submissions as he saw fit.

The applicant must now seek leave to appeal to this Court although he challenges that characterisation of the proceedings. He prefers to approach it on the basis of a review of the sentence imposed upon him in the Magistrates Court. Plainly at this stage of the matter the only avenue by which he could seek to ventilate that complaint is by first obtaining leave to appeal.

To do that he should have filed any application within 28 days of 10 May 1999. See Lewis CA204 of 1998. He filed the application approximately four months late on 5 October 1999. Apparently realising this point he has offered an explanation for the delay although it is not…

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 Dozsa

Details

AGLC: R v Dozsa [2000] QCA 10
Case: [2000] QCA 10
Decision Date: 4 February 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, Paul C Dozsa, was appealing against his conviction and sentence for fraud, which was imposed by the Magistrates Court at Southport. Dozsa had pleaded guilty to obtaining food and beverage at Jupiter's Casino without paying, and was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended after three months, with an operational period of four years. After his release from the three-month term, Dozsa reoffended, leading to him serving the remaining six months. He appealed to the District Court, but this was unsuccessful, and he now sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether leave to appeal should be granted and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The applicant argued that his appeal was heard four days earlier than expected, and that he had been half-drunk when appearing before the Magistrate. He also argued that he should have been charged under the Regulatory Offences Act, rather than the Criminal Code, and that he was entitled to free meals as a member of a high rollers club.

The Court found that Dozsa's application for leave to appeal was filed four months late, and that there was no compelling reason for the delay. The Court also found that the judgment of the District Court Judge was correct, and that Dozsa's claims of being half-drunk and entitled to free meals were inconsistent with the evidence. The Court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate, and refused Dozsa's application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Appeal refused Dozsa's application for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for fraud. The Court found that the application was filed four months late, and that there was no compelling reason for the delay. The Court also found that the judgment of the District Court Judge was correct, and that Dozsa's claims of being half-drunk and entitled to free meals were inconsistent with the evidence. The Court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate.

Orders