R v Lund - [2001] QCA 156

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Lund [2001] QCA 156

PARTIES: R
v
LUND Mark Andrew
(applicant)

FILE NO: CA No 9 of 2001
CA No 386 of 1999
DC No 797 of 1999

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Bowen

DELIVERED ON: 27 April 2001

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 6 April 2001

JUDGE: Thomas JA, Chesterman and Holmes JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: The applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction and for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant pleaded guilty – where there is no evidence to support a claim of inducement to plead guilty – whether disparity between appellants sentence and co-offenders sentence appropriate

The Queen v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286; CA No 24 of 1999, 24 September 1999, followed

COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Ms S Bain for the respondent

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

THE COURT: The applicant seeks an extension of time in which to (a) appeal against his conviction on a charge that on 4 May 1999 at Airlie Beach he robbed two female employees of a cafè being at the time armed with a pair of scissors with which he menaced the two women; (b) apply for leave to appeal against the sentence in respect of that offence. When arraigned on 4 November 1999 he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a term of six years imprisonment. As well the sentencing judge declared him to be a serious violent offender. An application for leave to appeal against sentence was filed a week later, on 11 November 1999, and was heard on 17 March 2000 when he was given leave to appeal and an order was made expunging the declaration but leaving unaffected the sentence of six years imprisonment.

Over a year later, on 15 January 2001, the applicant signed notices of application for extensions of time within which to appeal against conviction and to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.

When the application was called on for hearing the applicant, who spoke for himself by telephone, announced that he was not persisting with his application for leave to appeal against conviction but was concerned only to address what he saw as an injustice in the sentence imposed on him. It is, accordingly, unnecessary to address the merits of the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction but because the applicant is unrepresented it may be appropriate to indicate that that application had no realistic chance of succeeding because he did not make out a case for disturbing the plea of guilty. As this court pointed out in TheQueen v Gadaloff

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 Lund

Details

AGLC: R v Lund [2001] QCA 156
Case: [2001] QCA 156
Decision Date: 27 April 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lund, the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to criminal charges, appealed against the sentence imposed by the court. The central issue in this appeal was whether the disparity between the appellant's sentence and that of a co-offender, who received a lesser sentence, was appropriate. The appellant argued that the sentencing disparity was unjust and sought a reduction in his sentence.

The court examined the appellant's contention that the disparity was unjust and whether there was any evidence to suggest that the appellant was induced to plead guilty. After reviewing the evidence and arguments, the court found no basis for the appellant's claims of inducement. Consequently, the court held that the disparity in sentences did not warrant a reduction in the appellant's sentence. The court found that the sentencing disparity was justified given the circumstances of the case.

The court refused the applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction and for leave to appeal against the sentence. The reasoning was that the appellant had not provided any valid grounds for reducing his sentence, and the disparity with the co-offender's sentence was deemed appropriate under the circumstances. The court's decision upheld the original sentence, and the appellant's applications were dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction and for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.

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 Lund [2001] QCA 156
PARTIES:	R v LUND Mark Andrew (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 9 of 2001 CA No 386 of 1999 DC No 797 of 1999
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Bowen
DELIVERED ON:	27 April 2001
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 April 2001
JUDGE:	Thomas JA, Chesterman and Holmes JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	The applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction and for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where appellant pleaded guilty – where there is no evidence to support a claim of inducement to plead guilty – whether disparity between appellants sentence and co-offenders sentence appropriate The Queen v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286; CA No 24 of 1999, 24 September 1999, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Ms S Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent