R v Hardy

[2003] QCA 492

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.

-----