R v Salles

[2003] QCA 127

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: 

R v Salles [2003] QCA 127

PARTIES: 

R
v
SALLES, Aracati de Oliviera
(applicant)

FILE NO/S: 

CA No 10 of 2003

DIVISION: 

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: 

Application for Extension of Time (Sentence)

ORIGINATING

COURT: 

Supreme Court at Mackay

DELIVERED ON: 

20 March 2003

DELIVERED AT: 

Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 

20 March 2003

JUDGES: 

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

ORDERS: 

1.	Dismiss the application to extend time within which to apply for leave to appeal
2.	Declare that in giving effect to the sentence imposed on the applicant in the Supreme Court on 11th November 1996, the applicant is entitled to have the period of 157 days from 7th June 1996 to 11th November 1996 treated as time already served under that sentence
3.	The Registrar is directed to furnish a copy of these reasons to the Commission
4.	The Registrar is directed to provide a copy of these reasons to the applicant

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT – OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – pre-sentence time served and not declared under s 161(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether application should be allowed where matter already appealed – whether court can make a declaration that time be considered as time served

COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G C Davey for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: The applicant was one of three Brazilian seamen who were arrested shortly after coming ashore at Hay Point on 7th June 1996 and found to be in possession of a large quantity of cocaine. On 11th November 1996 the applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of importing the drug contrary to section 233B of the Customs Act 1901 Commonwealth. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 years with a non-parole period of 10 years. In arriving at that sentence Demack J said he took into account the applicant's plea of guilty and the fact that he had been in custody for five months before being sentenced.

In May 1997 the applicant's application for an extension of May 1997 extended the time for applying for leave but dismissed the appeal against sentence saying, in conclusion, that the sentence imposed was within the limits of a sound sentencing discretion.

time within which to appeal against sentence came before this
Court. His explanation for the delay in applying was that his
familiarity with the English language was limited and that he
had not been aware of his right to apply for leave to appeal
against sentence. On that occasion the applicant in
presenting his submissions to this Court was assisted by an
interpreter. It is evident from the Court's reasons published
on 20th of May 1997 that his submissions were or included that
his sentence was disproportionate to that…