R v Edwards - [2002] QCA 192

[2002] QCA 192

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
CULLINANE J
JONES J

CA No 78 of 2002

THE QUEEN

DEAN ANTHONY EDWARDS Applicant

TOWNSVILLE

..DATE 29/05/2002

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: I will ask Justice Cullinane to deliver the first reasons.

CULLINANE J: The applicant seeks an order extending the time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. He was convicted on his plea of guilty in the District Court at Townsville on the 23rd of August 2001 on two counts of armed robbery. The first was committed on the 30th of April 1997 when the applicant held up a video store whilst armed with a pistol and escaped with some $700. The applicant has informed us that the pistol was in fact a replica.

On the second count which was committed on the 3rd of June 1997 and again whilst similarly armed, he robbed a bank in Townsville and escaped with a little more than $10,000. On that occasion he was driven from the scene by his girlfriend.

He pleaded guilty to both offences and it was conceded by the prosecution that it would have been difficult to obtain a conviction on the first count without his confession.

Some three months after committing these offences he robbed a bank in South Australia and was sentenced there to imprisonment of five years and four months with a non-parole period of three and a-half years.

After being released on parole on the 6th of March 2001, he was extradited to Queensland to be dealt with for these matters.

The applicant has a substantial criminal history. He was born on the 18th of January 1962. In 1980 he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment for armed robbery and breaking and entering offences. He has convictions for offences of dishonesty dating back to September 1980 in New South Wales and in South Australia. It is in the latter State where he has committed most of the offences that appear in his criminal history. He has served terms of imprisonment for a number of these.

In sentencing the applicant the learned sentencing Judge approached the matter upon the basis of the totality principle looking at the two offences, the subject of this application, and the offence committed a few months later in Adelaide. He expressed the view that had he been dealing with the applicant for all of those matters he would have sentenced him to a term of something like 12 years' imprisonment. Some 169 days which had been served in presentence custody was declared to be imprisonment already served.

In applying the totality principle, his Honour necessarily had to take account of the reality of the South Australian sentence and the non-parole period and the fact that the applicant had already served that term of imprisonment.
The applicant did not file an application until the 14th of March 2002. That is more than five months out of time. He says that he gave instructions to his legal representatives to…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2002] QCA 192
Case: [2002] QCA 192
Decision Date: 29/05/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Edwards involved the applicant, Dean Anthony Edwards, who sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence. Edwards was convicted on two counts of armed robbery, one involving a video store and the other a bank, both committed in Townsville in 1997. He pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced in the District Court at Townsville on August 23, 2001. The sentencing judge applied the totality principle, considering Edwards' criminal history and a subsequent bank robbery in South Australia. Edwards was already serving a sentence of five years and four months for the South Australian offence, with a non-parole period of three and a half years, which he had served.

The legal issues before the court were whether there was a valid reason for the delay in applying for leave to appeal and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension. Edwards argued that the delay was due to his instruction to his legal representatives to appeal, a refusal of legal aid, delays in obtaining documentation from the Prisons Department in South Australia, and the trauma of losing his mother. The court had to consider these reasons and assess the prospects of success for the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that Edwards' prospects of successfully challenging the sentences were not strong, and the reasons provided for the delay did not justify granting the extension. The totality principle applied by the sentencing judge was deemed appropriate, and the sentences were not considered manifestly excessive. The Court of Appeal concluded that the application for an extension of time should be refused, with all judges concurring on this decision. Consequently, the order of the Court was that the application is refused.

Orders