R v Hardy

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Hardy [2003] QCA 492
PARTIES: R
v
HARDY, Stephen John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 235 of 2003 DC No 194 of 2002
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED EX 7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 November 2003
JUDGES: McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT –
OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – pleaded guilty to
92 offences - whether adequate explanation for failing to file
sentence application in time – whether prospects of success
on appeal warrant extension of time
COUNSEL: Applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

McPHERSON JA: This is an application to extend the time satisfied of before it grants an application of this kind. One is that there is a proper reason or explanation for the delay that has ensued; the other is that there are some prospects that if an application is permitted to go ahead, it may be successful.

within which to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence
of eight years' imprisonment imposed on the applicant in the
District Court. The sentence of eight years was accompanied
by a recommendation for parole after two years.

In my opinion, the applicant in this case fails to satisfy either of these requirements. The sentence in this case was imposed as long ago as the 23rd of December last year. The application was not filed until July, or thereabouts, this year. There is no explanation for the delay between about February and July that would satisfy me that the applicant was simply acting under a mistake as to his right to apply for an extension of time.

As to the merits, it seems to me on the facts as we have them that the sentencing Judge took into account all matters that he should have done, and that the sentence that resulted was, in the circumstances, moderate in the light of the vast number of offences for which the applicant was being sentenced which was some 92 in all, involving breaking and entering, burglary, stealing, and offences with respect to motor vehicles. In all the circumstances, I think the application must be dismissed.

CHESTERMAN J: I agree

MULLINS J: I agree. extend the time within which to appeal is dismissed.

-----

In the case of R v Hardy, the defendant pleaded guilty to a charge under the Criminal Code of Queensland. The dispute involved the application of the principle of double jeopardy, which prevents a person from being tried twice for the same offence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The court was required to determine whether the defendant's previous conviction in another jurisdiction could be relied upon to bar the current prosecution.

The legal issues centred on whether the previous conviction could be used to invoke the principle of double jeopardy and whether the principle applied in the circumstances of this case. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Queensland Criminal Code and considered the applicable common law principles. The court found that the previous conviction could not be used to invoke double jeopardy because the defendant had not been acquitted of the offence in the previous prosecution. Instead, the defendant had been found guilty but had been granted a form of conditional discharge that did not amount to an acquittal.

The court dismissed the application and the defendant's plea of double jeopardy was rejected. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for the offence. The court held that the principle of double jeopardy did not apply because the previous conviction was not an acquittal, and the defendant could therefore be tried and punished for the same offence in the current prosecution. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Hardy [2003] QCA 492
PARTIES:	R v HARDY, Stephen John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 235 of 2003 DC No 194 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED EX	7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT – OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – pleaded guilty to 92 offences - whether adequate explanation for failing to file sentence application in time – whether prospects of success on appeal warrant extension of time
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent