R v Phillips

[2017] QCA 41

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Phillips [2017] QCA 41

PARTIES:

R
v
PHILLIPS, Benjamin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 242 of 2016
SC No 150 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 28 June 2016

DELIVERED ON:

17 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 February 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Boddice J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – TIME FOR AN APPLICATION AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant entered pleas of guilty to two counts of possession of methylamphetamine, one count of possession of cannabis exceeding 500 grams and one count of possession of cannabis – where an overall sentence of five years was imposed with a one-third non-parole period – where the applicant was aged 40 years – where the applicant had relevant criminal history and had committed offences whilst released on bail – where the applicant entered a timely plea – where the applicant had made efforts at rehabilitation – where the applicant required long‑term and close supervision – where it was not contested at sentence that there was commercial motivation behind the offending – where the applicant contested on appeal that the possession of the drugs was a personal possession – where the applicant seeks an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicant suffered from depression – where the applicant thought his lawyers would lodge an appeal on his behalf – whether there is adequate explanation for the delay – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, applied
R v Gordon; Ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] 1 Qd R 429; [2009] QCA 209, cited
R v GV[2006] QCA 394, cited
R v Hesketh; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2004] QCA 116, considered
R v Hoad[2005] QCA 92, cited
R v McLaughlin[1997] QCA 473, considered
R v Morrison [1999] 1 Qd R 397; [1998] QCA 162, considered
R v Nagy [2004] 1 Qd R 63; [2003] QCA 175, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. FRASER JA:  I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of Philippides JA.  My additional reasons concern only two submissions made by the respondent.

2. First, the respondent submitted, with reference to Attorney-General (Qld) v Adair,[1] that “an obvious error in the judgment…