R v Richardson - [2014] QCA 171

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Richardson [2014] QCA 171

PARTIES:

R
v
RICHARDSON, Ronald James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 94 of 2014
DC No 32 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 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 refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICE OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was sentenced after trial for the offence of fraud to four years imprisonment on 22 February 2013 – where the applicant filed a notice of appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence on 6 March 2013 – where at the hearing of the appeal the applicant’s counsel informed the Court the sentence application was not pursued – where the Court on 30 July 2013 refused the sentence application and dismissed the appeal against conviction on 30 August 2013 – where the applicant twice lodged an application to reopen his sentence pursuant to s 188(1)(c) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and both applications were refused for being out of time – where the applicant has not explained the delay – where the applicant says the decision not to pursue his sentence application at the earlier appeal was taken by counsel without his express written approval – where the applicant says the jury and learned sentencing judge were deceived about the extent of the fraud and its consequences – where the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal are that his sentence is manifestly excessive and that he was sentenced on the wrong facts – whether the applicant has shown good reason to account for the delay – whether it is in the interests of justice for the applicant to be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668D
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(1)(c)

Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HCA 45, considered
R v Eveleigh[2009] QCA 257, cited
R v Gasenzer[2013] QCA 9, cited
R v Griffin [1969] 2 NSWR 497, cited
R v Medway [1976] 2 WLR 528; [1976] QB 779, cited
R v Richardson[2013] QCA 241, related
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied
R v Upson(No 2)[2013] QCA 149, considered
R v Ward[2008] QCA 222, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
T Fuller QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Ronald James Richardson, was convicted on 22 February 2013 after a…

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 Richardson

Details

AGLC: R v Richardson [2014] QCA 171
Case: [2014] QCA 171
Decision Date: 25 July 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Richardson involves the applicant appealing against the sentence and conviction for the offence of fraud, which was handed down on 22 February 2013. The applicant filed a notice of appeal against the conviction and an application for leave to appeal against the sentence on 6 March 2013. However, during the hearing of the appeal, the applicant's counsel informed the court that the sentence application was no longer being pursued. The court subsequently refused the sentence application and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The applicant has since made two applications to reopen his sentence, which were refused for being out of time. The applicant claims that the decision not to pursue the sentence application during the earlier appeal was made by counsel without his express written approval and that the jury and sentencing judge were misled about the extent of the fraud and its consequences. The applicant's proposed grounds of appeal are that his sentence is manifestly excessive and that he was sentenced on the wrong facts.

The legal issues in this case are whether the applicant has shown good reason to account for the delay in applying for an extension of time to appeal against sentence, and whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the applicant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The court must consider the relevant statutory provisions, including s 188(1)(c) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, which allows for an application to be made to reopen a sentence if there is good reason to do so. The court must also consider the principles of justice and fairness in determining whether to grant an extension of time.

The court found that the applicant had not shown good reason to account for the delay in applying for an extension of time to appeal against sentence. The court noted that the applicant had not explained the delay and that the decision not to pursue the sentence application during the earlier appeal was made by counsel without the applicant's express written approval. The court also found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the applicant an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence, as the applicant had not demonstrated any new evidence or argument that would warrant such an extension. The court emphasised the importance of timely applications for leave to appeal and the need for applicants to take responsibility for their own legal proceedings.

The court refused the applicant's application to extend the time for appealing against sentence. The court found that the applicant had not shown good reason to account for the delay in applying for an extension of time and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant such an extension. The court emphasised the importance of timely applications for leave to appeal and the need for applicants to take responsibility for their own legal proceedings.

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 Richardson [2014] QCA 171
PARTIES:	R v RICHARDSON, Ronald James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 94 of 2014 DC No 32 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 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 refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICE OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was sentenced after trial for the offence of fraud to four years imprisonment on 22 February 2013 – where the applicant filed a notice of appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence on 6 March 2013 – where at the hearing of the appeal the applicant’s counsel informed the Court the sentence application was not pursued – where the Court on 30 July 2013 refused the sentence application and dismissed the appeal against conviction on 30 August 2013 – where the applicant twice lodged an application to reopen his sentence pursuant to s 188(1)(c) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and both applications were refused for being out of time – where the applicant has not explained the delay – where the applicant says the decision not to pursue his sentence application at the earlier appeal was taken by counsel without his express written approval – where the applicant says the jury and learned sentencing judge were deceived about the extent of the fraud and its consequences – where the applicant’s proposed grounds of appeal are that his sentence is manifestly excessive and that he was sentenced on the wrong facts – whether the applicant has shown good reason to account for the delay – whether it is in the interests of justice for the applicant to be granted an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 668D Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 188(1)(c) Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HCA 45, considered R v Eveleigh[2009] QCA 257, cited R v Gasenzer[2013] QCA 9, cited R v Griffin [1969] 2 NSWR 497, cited R v Medway [1976] 2 WLR 528; [1976] QB 779, cited R v Richardson[2013] QCA 241, related R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied R v Upson(No 2)[2013] QCA 149, considered R v Ward[2008] QCA 222, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf T Fuller QC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent