R v Murray - [2014] QCA 160

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Murray [2014] QCA 160

PARTIES:

R
v
MURRAY, Rohan Lee
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 91 of 2014
CA No 290 of 2013
DC No 1581 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 June 2014

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction is refused.

2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm and was sentenced – where the applicant has applied for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction – where the applicant states that his lawyers told him he could not appeal against his conviction and it was not until matters were explained to him later that he realised he needed to appeal against his conviction – where the applicant's arguments go no further than stating that his lawyers strongly advised him to plead guilty to this charge, that he accepted that advice but that after he was sentenced he regretted pleading guilty – where the applicant is an adult, apparently of sound mind, who understood the nature of the charge and entered a guilty plea in open court after obtaining forthright legal advice – where the applicant has established neither a miscarriage of justice nor any real prospect of success in his proposed appeal against conviction if an extension of time were granted – whether the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where he was sentenced to five years imprisonment with an order that he be eligible for parole after about 20 months to be served cumulatively upon an earlier sentence – where the complainant had been in a relationship with the applicant for about six or seven years – where the applicant ripped the door handle off the front door and struck the complainant once to the front of the head with the shaft of the handle, becoming lodged in the complainant's forehead – where the complainant required urgent and extensive neuro-surgical repair – where the applicant lacked genuine compassion for, and insight into the offending – where the applicant had prior convictions for violence against his partners and committed this offence whilst on parole – where the only matters in the applicant's favour were his guilty plea and his dysfunctional background – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Meissner v…

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 Murray

Details

AGLC: R v Murray [2014] QCA 160
Case: [2014] QCA 160
Decision Date: 18 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Murray involved the applicant appealing against both his conviction and sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after about 20 months, to be served cumulatively with an earlier sentence. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence, arguing that his legal representation misinformed him about his ability to appeal, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive given the circumstances. The court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted and whether there were grounds for interference with the sentence.

The court first considered the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction. The applicant argued that his lawyers misinformed him about his ability to appeal, and he only realised the potential to appeal after receiving further explanation. However, the court noted that the applicant was an adult of sound mind who understood the nature of the charge and entered a guilty plea in open court after obtaining forthright legal advice. The applicant had not established a miscarriage of justice or a real prospect of success in his proposed appeal against conviction if an extension of time were granted. Therefore, the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was refused.

Regarding the application for leave to appeal against sentence, the court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the only matters in the applicant's favour were his guilty plea and his dysfunctional background. However, the court found that the applicant lacked genuine compassion for, and insight into the offending, and had prior convictions for violence against his partners. The sentence was not manifestly excessive given the circumstances. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

The court's final orders were that the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was refused, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction is refused.

2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Murray [2014] QCA 160
PARTIES:	R v MURRAY, Rohan Lee (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 91 of 2014 CA No 290 of 2013 DC No 1581 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	18 July 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 June 2014
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Fraser and Morrison JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1.The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction is refused. 2.The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm and was sentenced – where the applicant has applied for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction – where the applicant states that his lawyers told him he could not appeal against his conviction and it was not until matters were explained to him later that he realised he needed to appeal against his conviction – where the applicant's arguments go no further than stating that his lawyers strongly advised him to plead guilty to this charge, that he accepted that advice but that after he was sentenced he regretted pleading guilty – where the applicant is an adult, apparently of sound mind, who understood the nature of the charge and entered a guilty plea in open court after obtaining forthright legal advice – where the applicant has established neither a miscarriage of justice nor any real prospect of success in his proposed appeal against conviction if an extension of time were granted – whether the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to grievous bodily harm – where he was sentenced to five years imprisonment with an order that he be eligible for parole after about 20 months to be served cumulatively upon an earlier sentence – where the complainant had been in a relationship with the applicant for about six or seven years – where the applicant ripped the door handle off the front door and struck the complainant once to the front of the head with the shaft of the handle, becoming lodged in the complainant's forehead – where the complainant required urgent and extensive neuro-surgical repair – where the applicant lacked genuine compassion for, and insight into the offending – where the applicant had prior convictions for violence against his partners and committed this offence whilst on parole – where the only matters in the applicant's favour were his guilty plea and his dysfunctional background – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Meissner v…