R v Harrod (No 2)

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Harrod (No 2) [2011] QCA 303

PARTIES:

R
v
HARROD, Martin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 242 of 2011
SC No 66 of 1988

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

27 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Fraser JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 27 October 2011:

The application for an extension of time is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to murder 23 years ago and was sentenced to life imprisonment – whether the Court has power to vary a sentence of life imprisonment on appeal

R v Harrod [2011] QCA 4, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: On 31 August 2011 the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence of life imprisonment. That sentence was imposed more than 23 years ago when the applicant pleaded guilty to the murder of Gretchen Smith.

On 8 February 2011 the Court refused the applicant's earlier application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and for leave to appeal against sentence: see R v Harrod [2011] QCA 4. As the Court then explained, the life sentence imposed upon the applicant was the only sentence which the law permitted. The Court has no power on an appeal against sentence to vary a life sentence imposed for murder, whether by adding a provision for parole or otherwise.

The application for an extension of time should be refused.

CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.

MARGARET WILSON AJA: I agree.

CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harrod (No 2), the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment 23 years ago, sought to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal was tasked with determining whether it had the authority to alter a life sentence on appeal. The central issue was the extent of the Court's power to vary a sentence of life imprisonment under the relevant legislative framework.

The Court considered whether it could exercise its discretion to vary the sentence despite the passage of time since the conviction. It examined the statutory provisions that govern the Court's powers in such cases, as well as relevant case law. The Court also took into account the principle that the severity of a sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case at the time of sentencing. Ultimately, the Court found that it did not have the power to vary a sentence of life imprisonment on appeal, given the long period that had elapsed since the original sentence was imposed.

The Court's decision was based on the interpretation of the applicable legislation and the precedent set by previous cases. It held that the statutory provisions did not confer the necessary discretion to alter a life sentence once it had been imposed. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed. The Court's ruling underscored the importance of adhering to the legal principles that govern the imposition and alteration of sentences in criminal cases.

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 Harrod (No 2) [2011] QCA 303
PARTIES:	R v HARROD, Martin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 242 of 2011 SC No 66 of 1988
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	27 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 October 2011
JUDGES:	Chief Justice, Fraser JA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Delivered ex tempore on 27 October 2011: The application for an extension of time is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to murder 23 years ago and was sentenced to life imprisonment – whether the Court has power to vary a sentence of life imprisonment on appeal R v Harrod [2011] QCA 4, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent