R v NR

[2014] QCA 159

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v NR [2014] QCA 159

PARTIES:

R
v
NR
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 72 of 2014
DC No 958 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

17 July 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 July 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 order made

ORDER:

Application for an extension of time refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility set at one third of the sentence – where the applicant has filed an application for an extension time within which to appeal against his sentence – whether good reason has been shown to account for the delay in filing his appeal – whether, considering the strength of the proposed appeal, it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

R v CAQ[1999] QCA 197, considered
R v T; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1996] QCA 462, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P:  Fraser JA will deliver his reasons first.

FRASER JA:  On 18 November 2013, the applicant pleaded guilty to maintaining an unlawful sexual relationship with a child.  On 3 December 2013 he was sentenced to four years imprisonment with parole eligibility fixed on 30 March 2015 (after one-third of the period of imprisonment, taking into account three days served by the applicant in pre-sentence custody which could not be declared as time served under the sentence).

On 2 April 2014 the applicant filed an application for extension of time within which to appeal.  In considering such an application the Court examines whether any good reason has been shown to account for the delay and it considers whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension.  Where, as in this case, it is feasible to assess whether the prospects of the appeal are viable, the Court may take into account its provisional assessment of the strength of the proposed appeal: R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667 at 668.

The applicant’s explanation for the delay relies upon the cumulative effect of a series of asserted events: He did not receive a letter setting out the details of his sentence until 16 December 2013; after Legal Aid Queensland advised than an appeal was not appropriate, he sought independent legal advice but did not receive that until late January or…