R v Smith

[2008] QCA 62

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2008] QCA 62

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Cameron Raymond
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 27 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at  Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 March 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2008

JUDGES:

Holmes and Fraser JJA and Chesterman 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to 19 property offences – where the applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment – where the applicant applied for leave to appeal on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where the value of the unrecovered property was $26,464 – where the applicant had an extensive criminal history – where the applicant committed 18 of the 19 offences while on bail – whether it was in the interest of justice to grant the extensions – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Bryant [2007] QCA 247, considered
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA:  I will ask Justice Fraser to give his reasons first.

FRASER JA:  On 8 November 2007, the applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty to 19 property offences committed between 1 December 2006 and 22 March 2007.  The learned sentencing Judge proposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment on each count, other than for a count of attempted fraud, in respect of which the applicant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.  All of the sentences are to be served concurrently.

A declaration was made that the applicant had spent 230 days in pre-sentence custody solely in relation to those offences, and his Honour fixed a parole eligibility date at 23 July 2008, corresponding with about one-third of the term. The learned sentencing Judge also took into account eight summary offences under section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992.

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.  Because that application was filed about two months out of time, the applicant also applies for an extension of time within which to bring his application.  An affidavit filed by his former solicitor explains that the application for leave to appeal was not lodged in time because of an administrative error within the office of the solicitor.

There is therefore an…