R v GAH

Case [2009] QCA 70


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v GAH [2009] QCA 70

PARTIES:

R
v
GAH
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 322 of 2008
DC No 457 of 2007
DC No 458 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:


24 March 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 March 2009

JUDGES:

Chesterman JA, Mullins and Douglas JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – when refused – where the applicant was convicted of sexual offences against his daughter and stepdaughter – where the application for leave to appeal against sentence was lodged 10 months out of time – where the applicant sought the extension of time on ground that the sentences were manifestly excessive – whether there was satisfactory explanation for the delay – where applicant did not file application for extension of time after obtaining legal advice – where counsel for the applicant at his sentencing expressly agreed with the range of head sentence put forward by the prosecution for the most serious of the charges on each indictment – whether it would be in the interests of justice to grant the extension

R v SAG[2004] QCA 286, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MULLINS J:  The applicant seeks an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him on 19 December 2007 when he pleaded guilty to sexual offences on one indictment involving his daughter and on a second indictment involving his stepdaughter.

There were 23 counts on the first indictment.  The offending took place between June 2002 and October 2006.  The applicant was sentenced to 11 years' imprisonment for one count of maintaining a sexual relationship, nine years for each of 10 counts of rape and six years for each of 12 counts of indecent treatment of a child or attempted indecent treatment of a child.

There were 14 counts on the second indictment.  The period of offending involving the stepdaughter was about one year from October 2005.  On the second indictment the applicant was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment for one count of maintaining a sexual relationship, six years for each of four counts of rape and five years for each of nine counts of indecent treatment of a child or attempted indecent treatment of a child.

Each of the sentences for the offences of maintaining and rape were declared to be serious violent offences.  All…

Continue reading R v GAH

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v GAH [2009] QCA 70
Case
[2009] QCA 70
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal against sentence was lodged by the applicant, who had been convicted of various sexual offences against his daughter and stepdaughter. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him. The court was required to determine whether the application for leave to appeal against sentence, which was lodged 10 months out of time, could be extended. The applicant contended that the sentences were manifestly excessive and sought an extension of time on that ground. The applicant had not filed an application for extension of time after obtaining legal advice. Furthermore, the applicant's counsel at his sentencing expressly agreed with the range of head sentence put forward by the prosecution for the most serious of the charges on each indictment.

The court held that it was necessary to consider whether there was a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court also noted that the applicant's counsel at his sentencing expressly agreed with the range of head sentence put forward by the prosecution for the most serious of the charges on each indictment. The court concluded that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time. The court held that the application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence 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.