R v Riley - [2009] QCA 212

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Riley [2009] QCA 212

PARTIES:

R
v
RILEY, Graham Norman
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 138 of 2009
DC No 1573 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

24 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

14 July 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Chesterman JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where applicant convicted of two counts of rape – where the applicant sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction and sentence – where applicant argued that his delay in appealing was due to his failure to comprehend the offences to which he had pleaded guilty until he arrived at the prison – where proposed grounds of appeal included that the applicant only intended to plead guilty to sexual assault and was innocent of the crime of rape and that his sentence is manifestly excessive – whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in appealing – whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited

R v Basic (2000) 115 A Crim R 456; [2000] QCA 155, cited
R v Carkeet (2008) 185 A Crim R 147; [2008] QCA 143, cited
R v Kahu[2006] QCA 413, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G P Cash for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McMURDO P: The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and to apply for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by Fraser JA.

FRASER JA: 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. The learned sentencing judge recorded convictions with respect to both counts and sentenced the applicant to concurrent terms of imprisonment of six and a half years. His Honour also found proved a breach of the terms of a wholly suspended sentence of one month imposed on 3 June 2005 and ordered that term of one month to be served concurrently with the other terms of imprisonment. The sentencing judge fixed the applicant's parole eligibility date at 30 March 2010. By that date the applicant will have served two years and two months, or one-third of the term of imprisonment.

On 4 June 2009 the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal and a notice of appeal. The notice…

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 [2009] QCA 212
Case: [2009] QCA 212
Decision Date: 24 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Riley involved the applicant appealing against his conviction and sentence for two counts of rape. The applicant sought an extension of time to lodge his appeal, arguing that his delay was due to a failure to comprehend the gravity of his offences until he arrived at the prison. The proposed grounds of appeal included that the applicant only intended to plead guilty to sexual assault and was innocent of the crime of rape, as well as that his sentence was manifestly excessive. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in appealing and whether the appeal had reasonable prospects of success.

The court examined the applicant's reasons for the delay and considered the strength of the proposed grounds of appeal. It found that the applicant's explanation for the delay was not reasonable, as he had not acted with due diligence in understanding his rights and the consequences of his actions. The court also considered the proposed grounds of appeal and determined that they did not have reasonable prospects of success. As a result, the court refused the application for an extension of time and dismissed the appeal.

In its judgment, the court emphasised the importance of acting with due diligence in appealing a conviction and sentence. It noted that the applicant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his delay and that the proposed grounds of appeal were not compelling. The court concluded that the applicant's appeal did not meet the criteria for an extension of time and dismissed the application. The orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time be refused.

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 [2009] QCA 212
PARTIES:	R v RILEY, Graham Norman (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 138 of 2009 DC No 1573 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	24 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	14 July 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Fraser JA and Chesterman JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where applicant convicted of two counts of rape – where the applicant sought an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction and sentence – where applicant argued that his delay in appealing was due to his failure to comprehend the offences to which he had pleaded guilty until he arrived at the prison – where proposed grounds of appeal included that the applicant only intended to plead guilty to sexual assault and was innocent of the crime of rape and that his sentence is manifestly excessive – whether the applicant had provided a reasonable explanation for his delay in appealing – whether the appeal has reasonable prospects of success Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v Basic (2000) 115 A Crim R 456; [2000] QCA 155, cited R v Carkeet (2008) 185 A Crim R 147; [2008] QCA 143, cited R v Kahu[2006] QCA 413, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G P Cash for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent