R v Quinn - [2018] QCA 144

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Quinn [2018] QCA 144

PARTIES:

R
v
QUINN, Kevin Douglas
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 287 of 2017
DC No 87 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maryborough – Date of Sentence: 28 November 2016 (Dearden DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

29 June 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 June 2018

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Henry and Crow JJ

ORDERS:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PROCEDURE – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a relationship with a child, three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, five counts of sodomy committed against a child and three counts of failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 – where the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the maintaining count – where a serious violent offender declaration was made in respect of the maintaining count – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against his sentence approximately a year out of time – where there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay – whether there is any basis upon which the applicant’s sentence could be interfered with

R v ZA; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 249, discussed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D Kovac for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

SOFRONOFF P: On 28 November 2016 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a relationship with a child, three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, five counts of sodomy committed against a child and three counts of failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 (Qld). He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in respect of the maintaining count, two years imprisonment on the indecent treatment counts and five years imprisonment for each of the sodomy counts as well as two years imprisonment for each of his breaches of the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. The sentences were concurrent. A declaration that the applicant was a serious violent offender was made in respect of the maintaining charge. The learned sentencing judge made a declaration that the applicant had served 1,004 days of his term of imprisonment by reason of pre-sentence custody.
The applicant now seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence. The application was filed on 22 December 2017, almost a year out of time.
The applicant says that he lodged an appeal on 3 December 2016 to Legal Aid. There is no evidence to support this statement. There has been no other…

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 Quinn

Details

AGLC: R v Quinn [2018] QCA 144
Case: [2018] QCA 144
Decision Date: 29 June 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quinn involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to multiple serious offences, including maintaining a relationship with a child, indecent treatment of a child under 16, sodomy committed against a child, and failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004. The appellant was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment for maintaining a relationship with a child, with a serious violent offender declaration made in respect of that count. The appellant subsequently applied for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against his sentence, approximately a year out of the statutory period. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant could provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the application for an extension of time and, if not, whether there was any basis upon which the court could interfere with the sentence imposed.

The court examined the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay, finding that there was no satisfactory explanation. The court held that in the absence of an adequate explanation for the delay, the application for an extension of time should be refused. The court further determined that without a timely application for leave to appeal, there was no basis upon which the court could interfere with the sentence imposed. The appellant’s application for an extension of time was accordingly refused.

In summary, the court found that the appellant's application for an extension of time to appeal his sentence was without merit due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation for the delay. As a result, the application was dismissed, and no leave to appeal was granted. Consequently, the sentence imposed on the appellant remained unaffected by the court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Quinn [2018] QCA 144
PARTIES:	R v QUINN, Kevin Douglas (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 287 of 2017 DC No 87 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maryborough – Date of Sentence: 28 November 2016 (Dearden DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	29 June 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 June 2018
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Henry and Crow JJ
ORDERS:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – GENERAL PRINCIPLES – PROCEDURE – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of maintaining a relationship with a child, three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, five counts of sodomy committed against a child and three counts of failing to comply with reporting obligations under the Child Protection (Offender Reporting) Act 2004 – where the applicant was sentenced to a head sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the maintaining count – where a serious violent offender declaration was made in respect of the maintaining count – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against his sentence approximately a year out of time – where there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay – whether there is any basis upon which the applicant’s sentence could be interfered with R v ZA; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2009] QCA 249, discussed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D Kovac for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent