R v Grant-Muir - [2004] QCA 282

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Grant-Muir [2004] QCA 282

PARTIES:

R
v
GRANT-MUIR, Darren Ross

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 232 of 2004

DC No 936 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 August 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 August 2004

JUDGES:

Davies JA, McPherson JA, Helman J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – BURGLARY AND LIKE OFFENCES - SENTENCING – whether sentence manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence. The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Brisbane to one count of attempting to enter premises with intent, three counts of burglary and stealing, one count of attempted burglary, one count of stealing and one count of possession of implements of house-breaking.

He was sentenced to two years imprisonment for each of these offences to be served concurrently. This two year term was, however, to be served cumulatively after the applicant had served the remaining two and a half years of a partly suspended sentence that he breached by committing these offences. That partly suspended sentence of four years, which was one to be suspended after 18 months for an operational period of five years, was imposed in the District Court in January 2002 for 11 counts of house-breaking, attempted house-breaking, fraud and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. The upshot was the cumulative sentence of four and a half years imposed here, the principal part of which was attributable to the balance of two and a half years remaining from that earlier sentence.

The applicant was, on this occasion convicted and sentenced on 20th of May 2004. He did not appeal within the time allowed of one calendar month from the date of sentence. It was not until 16th July 2004 that the application for an extension of time was filed, which is a delay of some 25 days. The explanation for the delay given by the applicant in his written application for extension is that he had not realised the full impact of the sentence as well as the implications for parole and sentence management. By that, he meant that he did not know the full details of his sentence at the time or within the time needed to appeal within 30 days, or so he explained in the oral submissions he made to us on the application.

In its original form, what he said was not an explanation at all, or at any rate, not one on which this Court would feel justified in acting in the case of a delay as long as 25 days…

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 Grant-Muir

Details

AGLC: R v Grant-Muir [2004] QCA 282
Case: [2004] QCA 282
Decision Date: 4 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court of Appeal was an appeal by the respondent against the sentence imposed upon him for a burglary. The respondent, Grant-Muir, had been found guilty of entering a dwelling with intent to commit an indictable offence. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly excessive. The Court had to consider the principles of sentencing in the context of burglary offences, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the impact on the victim. The respondent argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and disproportionate, taking into account his personal circumstances and the absence of aggravating factors.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. It held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the relevant principles and circumstances of the case, including the nature and seriousness of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the need for deterrence. The Court noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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 Grant-Muir [2004] QCA 282
PARTIES:	R v GRANT-MUIR, Darren Ross (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 232 of 2004 DC No 936 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	4 August 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	4 August 2004
JUDGES:	Davies JA, McPherson JA, Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – BURGLARY AND LIKE OFFENCES - SENTENCING – whether sentence manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent