R v Meid - [2006] QCA 124

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Meid [2006] QCA 124

PARTIES:

R
v
MEID, Astrid

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 23 of 2006
SC No 36 of 2004

SC No 37 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

21 April 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 April 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Chesterman J

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time within which to appeal refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possessing and supplying cannabis and possession of a pipe used in connection with cannabis – where applicant was fined $1,100 to be paid within six months – where court also suggested that fines be converted to community service – where applicant later applied to have fines waived or revoked on ground of diminished responsibility – where applicant has applied for extension of time within which to appeal claiming ill health and harassment by State Penalties Enforcement Registry - whether fines were manifestly excessive or did not take applicant's financial circumstances into account under s 48 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Div 2 Part 4, s 48

State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld), s 34, s 35

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf

B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The applicant has not given a satisfactory explanation to explain her delay in seeking to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on 5 November 2004. For the reasons given by Jerrard JA, with which I agree, she has in any case not demonstrated that she has any prospects of success were time extended to allow her to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. I agree with Jerrard JA that the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

JERRARD JA: This application is for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on 5 November 2004 in the Supreme Court at Rockhampton. On that date the applicant Ms Meid was convicted on her pleas of guilty of one count of possessing cannabis in a quantity exceeding 500 grams, three counts of supplying cannabis to another, and one count of possession of a pipe used in connection with the consumption of cannabis. She was fined a total of $1,100 and allowed six months to pay. By an application filed 23 January 2006 she has sought an extension of time within which to…

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 Meid

Details

AGLC: R v Meid [2006] QCA 124
Case: [2006] QCA 124
Decision Date: 21 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Meid was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The applicant had originally pleaded guilty to possessing and supplying cannabis and possession of a pipe used in connection with cannabis. The applicant was subsequently fined $1,100 to be paid within six months. The court also suggested that the fines be converted to community service. The applicant later applied to have the fines waived or revoked on the ground of diminished responsibility. The applicant subsequently applied for an extension of time within which to appeal, citing ill health and harassment by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry as reasons for the delay. The court was required to determine whether the fines imposed were manifestly excessive or failed to take the applicant's financial circumstances into account under section 48 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

The court found that the applicant's application for an extension of time within which to appeal was based on ill health and harassment by the State Penalties Enforcement Registry. However, the court noted that these reasons were not sufficient to justify an extension of time. The court further found that the applicant's argument that the fines were manifestly excessive or did not take into account the applicant's financial circumstances was not persuasive. The court noted that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support this claim. The court held that the fines imposed were reasonable and took into account the applicant's financial circumstances.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction and sentence. The court found that there was no substantial miscarriage of justice in the original decision of the lower court. The court further held that the applicant's application for an extension of time within which to appeal was not justified. The court refused the applicant's application for an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time within which to appeal 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 Meid [2006] QCA 124
PARTIES:	R v MEID, Astrid (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 23 of 2006 SC No 36 of 2004 SC No 37 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	21 April 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 April 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time within which to appeal refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL WHERE NO SUBSTANTIAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE – GENERAL PRINCIPLES - where applicant pleaded guilty to and was convicted of possessing and supplying cannabis and possession of a pipe used in connection with cannabis – where applicant was fined $1,100 to be paid within six months – where court also suggested that fines be converted to community service – where applicant later applied to have fines waived or revoked on ground of diminished responsibility – where applicant has applied for extension of time within which to appeal claiming ill health and harassment by State Penalties Enforcement Registry - whether fines were manifestly excessive or did not take applicant's financial circumstances into account under s 48 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), Div 2 Part 4, s 48 State Penalties Enforcement Act 1999 (Qld), s 34, s 35
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent