R v Riley - [2010] QCA 91

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Riley [2010] QCA 91

PARTIES:

R
v
RILEY, Graham Norman
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 25 of 2010
DC No 1573 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

23 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2010

JUDGES:

Fraser and Chesterman JJA and Ann Lyons 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 – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of rape – where applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six and a half years – where applicant previously applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and sentence – where the Court found there was no substance to the application and an extension of time was refused – where applicant now seeks a further extension of time on the grounds that he did not know he could appeal his sentence or his conviction after entering a guilty plea; he has lost faith in his legal representative and the justice system; and he was treated unfairly throughout the criminal proceeding – whether leave should be granted for an extension of time based on the new grounds

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s24

R v AP[2003] QCA 445, cited
R v Riley[2009] QCA 212, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Ann Lyons J and the order proposed by her Honour.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by Ann Lyons J.

ANN LYONS J: On 31 January 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of raping a 16 year old girl on 18 November 2005. Convictions were recorded with respect to both counts and the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six and a-half years. As those convictions breached the terms of a wholly suspended sentence of one month which had been imposed on 3 June 2005, his Honour Brabazon DCJ ordered that the term of one month be served concurrently with other terms of imprisonment. The parole eligibility date was fixed at 30 March 2010 which was at the one third mark.

The previous application for extension of time in 2009

On 4 June 2009 the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal and a notice of appeal in relation to his conviction and sentence in relation to the two counts of rape.

That application for an extension of time was…

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 Riley

Details

AGLC: R v Riley [2010] QCA 91
Case: [2010] QCA 91
Decision Date: 23 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Riley, pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of rape and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six and a half years. He previously applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction and sentence, but this was refused. Riley now seeks a further extension of time on the grounds that he did not know he could appeal his sentence or conviction after entering a guilty plea, he has lost faith in his legal representative and the justice system, and he was treated unfairly throughout the criminal proceeding.

The court was required to determine whether leave should be granted for an extension of time based on the new grounds presented by Riley. The court considered whether the grounds were sufficient to warrant an extension of time, and whether there was any merit in Riley's claims of unawareness, lost faith, and unfair treatment. The court also considered the potential impact on the administration of justice and the rights of the victim.

The court found that the new grounds presented by Riley were not sufficient to warrant an extension of time. The court noted that the grounds were not supported by any evidence or explanation, and that Riley had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension. The court also noted that the grounds were not relevant to the question of whether an appeal would have a reasonable chance of success. The court held that the application for an extension of time should be refused.

The court refused the application for an extension of time, and no further orders were made.

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 Riley [2010] QCA 91
PARTIES:	R v RILEY, Graham Norman (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 25 of 2010 DC No 1573 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	23 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2010
JUDGES:	Fraser and Chesterman JJA and Ann Lyons 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 – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to two counts of rape – where applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six and a half years – where applicant previously applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and sentence – where the Court found there was no substance to the application and an extension of time was refused – where applicant now seeks a further extension of time on the grounds that he did not know he could appeal his sentence or his conviction after entering a guilty plea; he has lost faith in his legal representative and the justice system; and he was treated unfairly throughout the criminal proceeding – whether leave should be granted for an extension of time based on the new grounds Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 7, s24 R v AP[2003] QCA 445, cited R v Riley[2009] QCA 212, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent