R v PAM - [2011] QCA 36

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v PAM [2011] QCA 36

PARTIES:

R
v
PAM
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 216 of 2010
DC No 118 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

Order delivered ex tempore 10 February 2011
Further order and reasons delivered 8 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 February 2011

JUDGES:

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

ORDERS:

Delivered ex tempore 10 February 2011

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

Delivered 8 March 2011

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

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1) and three counts of rape (counts 2 - 4) – where the applicant argued he was pressured by his legal representative to plead guilty – where the applicant alleged he was not aware of the prosecution case against him – where the applicant produced no evidence to support these contentions – whether the applicant has any prospects of success on appeal – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in respect of count 1 and four years concurrent imprisonment on each of counts 2 to 4 with parole eligibility after 32 months – where there were few mitigating factors – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v AAI [2009] QCA 253, cited
R v BAO [2004] QCA 445, cited
R v BBP [2009] QCA 114, cited
R v GDJC, unreported, Ryrie DCJ, DC No 862 of 2008, 25 July 2008.
R v HAN (2008) 184 A Crim R 153; [2008] QCA 106, cited

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: On 13 September 2010 the applicant, who is now self-represented, filed a notice of appeal against his conviction and an application for leave to appeal against his sentence. His application for leave to appeal against sentence was within the prescribed time limit, but his appeal against conviction was more than two months after his plea of guilty to the charges, the convictions from which he…

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 PAM

Details

AGLC: R v PAM [2011] QCA 36
Case: [2011] QCA 36
Decision Date: 8 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v PAM, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and three counts of rape. He sought an extension to appeal against his conviction on the basis that he had been pressured by his legal representative to plead guilty and that he was not aware of the prosecution case against him. The applicant also sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the applicant's arguments and found that he had produced no evidence to support his claims of being pressured to plead guilty or of not being aware of the prosecution case. The court held that the applicant had no prospects of success on appeal against his conviction and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time. The court also considered the applicant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive but found that there were few mitigating factors and that the sentence was appropriate.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for interference with the sentence imposed. The court's decision was delivered ex tempore on 10 February 2011 in relation to the extension of time and in writing on 8 March 2011 in relation to the leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore 10 February 2011

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

Delivered 8 March 2011

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 PAM [2011] QCA 36
PARTIES:	R v PAM (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 216 of 2010 DC No 118 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	Order delivered ex tempore 10 February 2011 Further order and reasons delivered 8 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 February 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman and White JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	Delivered ex tempore 10 February 2011 1. The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction is refused. Delivered 8 March 2011 2. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (count 1) and three counts of rape (counts 2 - 4) – where the applicant argued he was pressured by his legal representative to plead guilty – where the applicant alleged he was not aware of the prosecution case against him – where the applicant produced no evidence to support these contentions – whether the applicant has any prospects of success on appeal – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in respect of count 1 and four years concurrent imprisonment on each of counts 2 to 4 with parole eligibility after 32 months – where there were few mitigating factors – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v AAI [2009] QCA 253, cited R v BAO [2004] QCA 445, cited R v BBP [2009] QCA 114, cited R v GDJC, unreported, Ryrie DCJ, DC No 862 of 2008, 25 July 2008. R v HAN (2008) 184 A Crim R 153; [2008] QCA 106, cited
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