R v Moore

[2009] QCA 284

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Moore [2009] QCA 284

PARTIES:

R
v
MOORE, Anthony Michael
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 163 of 2009
DC No 3644 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 September 2009

JUDGES:

Keane, Holmes and Chesterman JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for an extension of time refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant convicted on own plea and sentenced to term of imprisonment – where applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence – where applicant purported to explain delay by reference to his unawareness of time limit – where evidence that applicant received legal advice with respect to time limit and prospects of success – whether application should be granted

R v Flew [2008] QCA 290, cited
R v GV [2006] QCA 394, cited
R v Lewis [2006] QCA 121, cited
R v Moore [1994] QCA 294, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the applicant
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robertson O'Gorman for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

KEANE JA:  On 19 January 2009 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of four counts of rape, eight counts of sexual assault and one count of indecent assault.  He was sentenced to an effective term of 10 years imprisonment.  A period of 88 days was declared to be time served under his sentence.

On 21 June 2009, that is, about four months after the time for any appeal had expired, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against his convictions and sentence.

The only ground of challenge advanced in relation to the convictions was that "[t]he conviction is unsatisfactory and contrary to law".  How this was said to be so, bearing in mind that the applicant pleaded guilty to the charges on the indictment, was not explained.  Not surprisingly, the applicant has now abandoned his attempt to appeal against his convictions.

The ground of challenge to the sentence which was originally advanced by the applicant was that the sentence is "manifestly excessive in all the circumstances".  While the applicant was unrepresented, he made a written submission in which he sought to elaborate on this ground contending that:

"1.His Honour heard erred by giving insufficient weight to the guilty plea;

2.His Honour erred in failing to correctly apply s 9(4) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld).

3.His Honour erred in failing to apply the principle of delay in prosecution;

4.His Honour erred by failing to take into account a period of…