R v Lee

[2001] QCA 298

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
THOMAS JA
WILLIAMS JA

CA No 39 of 2001

THE QUEEN

KEVIN JOHN LEE

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/07/2001

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant who is not legally represented has sought leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the District Court on 12 February 2001. When the matter was called on this morning, he indicated that he wished to abandon his application. The application will therefore be dismissed.

Mr Kelly who appears for the Crown drew our attention to the circumstance that on 14 March 2000 in the Magistrates Court at Ipswich, the applicant was subjected to a term of imprisonment of nine months, suspended for two years, which was activated by the learned District Court judge on
12 February 2001 on the basis that the applicant serve that period of nine months imprisonment precedent to the two years' imprisonment effectively imposed by the learned judge in respect of the applicant's subsequent offending.

He was also then on 14 March 2000 in the Ipswich Magistrates Court placed on probation for 12 months in respect of other offences. Mr Kelly raised the arguable inappropriateness of an order for probation being imposed perhaps concurrently with an order for suspended imprisonment. We are not in a position to determine precisely the circumstances in which matters proceeded in the Magistrates Court on 14 March 2000. In fact the 12 months period of probation has expired.

It may be that any arguable discrepancy has no practical ramification. But so that the matter might regularly be explored in the interests of the prisoner, we will ask the Crown to refer the matter to the Legal Aid Office so that some inquiry may be made on the basis further that having made that inquiry, the Legal Aid Office will then advise the prisoner of the ultimate position uncovered.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

WILLIAMS JA: I agree.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Lee involved Kevin John Lee, who appealed against sentences imposed on him by the District Court. Lee, who was unrepresented, sought leave to appeal, but later abandoned his application, resulting in the dismissal of his appeal. The Crown highlighted that Lee had previously been sentenced by the Magistrates Court to a suspended term of imprisonment, which the District Court judge activated. Additionally, Lee was placed on probation for 12 months for other offences, raising concerns about the appropriateness of concurrent orders for probation and suspended imprisonment.

The legal issues before the court included the activation of a previously suspended sentence and the appropriateness of concurrent probation and suspended imprisonment orders. The court acknowledged that it was not in a position to precisely determine the circumstances of the earlier proceedings in the Magistrates Court but noted the potential inappropriateness of the orders.

The court concluded that while any discrepancies might have no practical ramification since the 12 months period of probation had expired, it was in the interests of the prisoner to explore the matter further. The Chief Justice directed the Crown to refer the matter to the Legal Aid Office for inquiry, which would then advise the prisoner on the uncovered position. Both Thomas JA and Williams JA concurred with this decision.

The final order was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. Additionally, the Crown was directed to refer the matter to the Legal Aid Office for further inquiry into the circumstances of the earlier sentences, and the Legal Aid Office was to advise the prisoner accordingly.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established