Legal Research
Cases
R v Pickup

R v Pickup

Case [2008] QCA 350 5 November 2008

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350

PARTIES:

R
v
PICKUP, Steven Geoffrey
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 138 of 2008
CA No 208 of 2008
DC No 86 of 2008
DC No 336 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application
Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

5 November 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 October 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction refused

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape – where the admitted facts disclosed all of the elements of each of the charges of rape – where the applicant argued that many of the admitted facts were incorrect and that those errors vitiated his guilty plea – whether an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction should be granted

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for each of the three counts of rape and was also ordered to serve twelve months of a remaining term of nearly two and a half years of a sentence of three years suspended after 166 days that had been imposed after a conviction for a malicious act with intent – where applicant also had previous convictions for common assault and for a breach of a domestic violence order – where the applicant had the benefit of an early guilty plea – where the applicant had suffered an unfortunate upbringing –where the sentence imposed was within the range submitted by the applicant’s counsel at sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143, cited
R v Flew [2008] QCA 290, cited
R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440, cited
R v McCauley [2000] QCA 265, cited
R v Stevens; ex parte the A-G (Qld) (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G J Cummings for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should both…

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 Pickup

Details

AGLC: R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350
Case: [2008] QCA 350
Decision Date: 5 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pickup involved an appeal against conviction and sentence by the applicant, who had pleaded guilty to three counts of rape. The applicant argued that errors in the admitted facts vitiated his guilty plea, and sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction. Additionally, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, which was five years imprisonment for each count of rape, as well as a suspended sentence for a prior offence. The court had to determine whether the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be granted and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the admitted facts, despite the applicant's claims of inaccuracies, were sufficient to support his guilty plea, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of appeal against conviction and sentence, focusing on the correctness of the plea and the appropriateness of the sentence imposed. The court examined the nature and extent of the applicant's criminal history, the seriousness of the current offences, and the mitigating factors presented, including the applicant's background and the early guilty plea.

The court found that the admitted facts were sufficient to support the applicant's guilty plea and that the errors alleged did not vitiate the plea. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was dismissed. Regarding the sentence, the court noted that it was within the range proposed by the applicant's counsel and considered the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and denied the application for leave to appeal against sentence.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and also refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The convictions and sentence imposed remained unaltered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction refused

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350

Most Recent Citation

R v Gippo [2012] QCA 232

Cases citing this decision · 7 of 7 shown

R v SDM
[2021] QCA 135 Para 4

…The applicant relies on R v Clarke [2017] QCA 226, R v Kellett [2020] QCA 199 and R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350. None of these authorities involved offences to which s 9(10A) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) (the Act) applied.…
R v McConnell
[2018] QCA 107 Para 1

…be imposed as a last resort, that it does not apply to an offence involving violence or physical harm. [6][2000] QCA 265. [7][2013] QCA 227. [8][2008] QCA 350. [9][1994] QCA 507. [10][1992] QCA 238. [11][1995] QCA 109. [12][1997] QCA 66. [13][2002] QCA 523. [14][2018] QCA 29. [15] Penalties and Sentences (Serious…
R v Bouttell
[2018] QCA 52 Para 8

…between the offender and an adult complainant. The case is factually too different from the present case to be of any assistance here. In R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350 and R v Stephens; Ex parte Attorney-General (1994) 76 A Crim R 5, sentences of five years imprisonment with provision for early parole eligibility re…
R v Postchild
[2013] QCA 227 Para 1

…[7] The Crown, maintaining that the sentence imposed was appropriate, referred the court to R v M [8] and R v Wood .[9] [4](1994) 76 A Crim R 5. [5][2008] QCA 350. [6][2012] QCA 232. [7][2013] QCA 93. [8][2001] QCA 166. [9][1994] QCA 544.…
R v Bastos de Freitas
[2013] QCA 164 Para 1

…practice, prior to the decision in Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) ,[25] of moderating a sentence increased on an Attorney-General’s appeal. [22][2008] QCA 350. [23](1994) 76 A Crim R 5. [24] R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350 at [35]. [25](2011) 242 CLR 573.…
R v Was
[2013] QCA 93 Para 1

…date at a significantly lesser proportional period, and set the parole eligibility date after the applicant had served two years and three months. [3][2008] QCA 350.…
R v Gippo
[2012] QCA 232 Para 1

…prosecutor submitted that a sentence of seven years imprisonment was appropriate, relying on R v Pickup ;[2] R v Edwards [3] and R v Taiters .[4] [2][2008] QCA 350. [3][1997] QCA 472. [4][2001] QCA 324.…

View all 7 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 8 of 8 shown

R v Flew
[2008] QCA 290 Para 1

…the applicant’s own counsel, so that the applicant bears a heavy burden of demonstrating error.[3] In my view there was no error. [3] R v Flew [2008] QCA 290 at [28], [46] and [52].…
R v Carkeet
[2008] QCA 143 Para 1

…e interest of justice to grant the extension of time.[1] [1] R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304; R v Witsen [2008] QCA 31 at [3]; R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143 at [21].…
R v Witsen
[2008] QCA 31 Para 1

…r to determine whether it is in the interest of justice to grant the extension of time.[1] [1] R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304; R v Witsen [2008] QCA 31 at [3]; R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143 at [21].…
R v McCauley
[2000] QCA 265 Para 1

…tion that the sentences were excessive, much less that they were so unreasonably severe as to justify interference by this Court. [4]See R v McCauley [2000] QCA 265, R v Stevens; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, and R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440.…
R v Tait
[1998] QCA 304 Para 1

…al might have merit in order to determine whether it is in the interest of justice to grant the extension of time.[1] [1] R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304; R v Witsen [2008] QCA 31 at [3]; R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143 at [21].…
Meissner v the Queen
[1995] HCA 41 Para 1

…no basis for thinking that the applicant has any prospects of success in his proposed appeal.[2] [2] Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 at 141; [1995] HCA 41; R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143 at [24]-[26].…
R v Stephens
[1994] QCA 507 Para 1

…reasonably severe as to justify interference by this Court. [4]See R v McCauley [2000] QCA 265, R v Stevens; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, and R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440.…
R v Hunt
[1994] QCA 440 Para 1

…fy interference by this Court. [4]See R v McCauley [2000] QCA 265, R v Stevens; ex parte A-G (Qld) (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, and R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440.…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Pickup [2008] QCA 350
PARTIES:	R v PICKUP, Steven Geoffrey (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 138 of 2008 CA No 208 of 2008 DC No 86 of 2008 DC No 336 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 October 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction refused 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON PLEA OF GUILTY – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of rape – where the admitted facts disclosed all of the elements of each of the charges of rape – where the applicant argued that many of the admitted facts were incorrect and that those errors vitiated his guilty plea – whether an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction should be granted CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment for each of the three counts of rape and was also ordered to serve twelve months of a remaining term of nearly two and a half years of a sentence of three years suspended after 166 days that had been imposed after a conviction for a malicious act with intent – where applicant also had previous convictions for common assault and for a breach of a domestic violence order – where the applicant had the benefit of an early guilty plea – where the applicant had suffered an unfortunate upbringing –where the sentence imposed was within the range submitted by the applicant’s counsel at sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143, cited R v Flew [2008] QCA 290, cited R v Hunt [1994] QCA 440, cited R v McCauley [2000] QCA 265, cited R v Stevens; ex parte the A-G (Qld) (1994) 76 A Crim R 5; [1994] QCA 507, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G J Cummings for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent