R v Satui

Case [2002] QCA 323


[2002] QCA 323

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
MACKENZIE J
HOLMES J

CA No 165 of 2002

THE QUEEN

v.

MAKA SATUI                  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/08/2002

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 17 March 1997 to one offence of burglary, two of deprivation of liberty, two of armed robbery, three of entering a dwelling house with intent, one of attempted armed robbery and three of stealing.  The offences occurred between 9 November 1996 and 15 November 1996.  On the same day he was sentenced to an effective term of nine years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after serving three and a half years of that term.  A declaration was made that 122 days pre-sentence custody be regarded as part of the sentence served.

On 13 May this year the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against that sentence. The basis of the application, as appeared in the document which was filed, was that at the time the sentence was imposed the learned sentencing judge could not have been aware of the possibility of the applicant's deportation under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In consequence it was submitted the integrity of the original sentencing determination was somehow undermined. In my opinion there is no basis for this contention. There is no reason to think that the possibility or even likelihood of the applicant's deportation will have any effect on the sentence which he is required to serve.

The applicant in his oral submissions before us has also relied on his lack of understanding of what his rights were in respect of sentence.  Again, that is not a satisfactory reason for an extension of time particularly having regard to the very long time that has lapsed between the imposition of the sentence which has been imposed.  Nor is there any other reason to think that the sentence which was imposed was in any way excessive. 

Accordingly, in my opinion, the application should be dismissed.

MACKENZIE J:  I agree.

HOLMES J:  I agree.

DAVIES JA:  The application is dismissed.

-----

Details
AGLC
R v Satui [2002] QCA 323
Case
[2002] QCA 323
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Satui, the applicant, Maka Satui, appealed against his sentence imposed by the District Court on 17 March 1997. Satui pleaded guilty to various offences including burglary, deprivation of liberty, armed robbery, entering a dwelling house with intent, attempted armed robbery, and stealing. The offences occurred between 9 November and 15 November 1996. Satui was sentenced to an effective term of nine years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after serving three and a half years. A declaration was also made that 122 days of pre-sentence custody be regarded as part of the sentence served.

The legal issues in this case revolved around whether the applicant's sentence should be subject to an extension of time for seeking leave to appeal. Satui argued that the sentencing judge was unaware of the possibility of his deportation under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) at the time of the sentencing, which undermined the integrity of the original sentencing determination. Satui also claimed that he did not understand his rights in respect of the sentence, and therefore, the sentence imposed was excessive. The court had to determine if these arguments were valid grounds for an extension of time for an appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis for Satui's contention that the sentencing judge's lack of awareness of the possibility of deportation would undermine the integrity of the original sentencing determination. The court held that the likelihood of deportation would not have any effect on the sentence to be served. Furthermore, the court found that Satui's lack of understanding of his rights in respect of the sentence was not a satisfactory reason for an extension of time, particularly considering the significant time that had elapsed since the imposition of the sentence. The court also concluded that there was no evidence to suggest that the sentence was excessive. As a result, the application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.