SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Sommerfeld [2009] QCA 333
PARTIES:
R
v
SOMMERFELD, Angela Lee
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 228 of 2009
DC No 1424 of 2009
DC No 3400 of 2008DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at BrisbaneDELIVERED ON:
30 October 2009
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
20 October 2009
JUDGES:
Keane and Holmes JJA and A Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant was convicted on plea of guilty to dishonestly obtaining $125,986.48 from her employer and one count of breach of recognisance – where applicant attempted to conceal the offending through further dishonesty – where applicant sentenced to six and a half years imprisonment – where applicant eligible for parole after serving one third of the sentence – whether it would be a miscarriage of justice not to allow the application for an extension of time – whether any subsequent appeal has any real prospect of success
R v Cheers [1997] QCA 329, followed
R v Power [1998] QCA 32, followed
R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169, considered
R v Scott [1997] QCA 300, followed
R v Ward [2008] QCA 222, followedCOUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on her own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondentSOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
KEANE JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons of A Lyons J. I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed by her Honour.
HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of A Lyons J and the order her Honour proposes.
A LYONS J: On 12 June 2009 the applicant was sentenced on one count of fraud as an employee involving an amount of almost $126,000. This money was taken on 20 separate occasions, in transactions which involved amounts ranging from $3,200 to $14,300. Those offences occurred when the applicant “held a responsible position with the complainant and a position of trust,” with the sentencing judge indicating, “I don’t think the Crown Prosecutor is being unfair when he described them as systematic fraud and a gross breach of that trust”.[1]
[1]Sentencing transcript at pp 1-3, ll 28-30.
The applicant was sentenced to four years imprisonment to be served cumulatively, with an activated two and a half year suspended sentence. A parole eligibility date was fixed as 12 July 2011. That was an effective sentence of six and a half years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date after two years and one month.
A cumulative sentence was imposed by the sentencing judge because the offences for which the applicant…
Continue reading R v Sommerfeld
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sommerfeld [2009] QCA 333
- Case
- [2009] QCA 333
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues for the court to determine were whether the application for an extension of time to appeal should be allowed, and if any potential appeal had a real prospect of success. The court considered the applicant's attempts to conceal her offending through further dishonesty and the substantial sentence imposed, which indicated the gravity of the offences.
The court examined the statutory provisions governing the extension of time for appeals and assessed whether the application met the criteria for an extension. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated that it would be a miscarriage of justice to refuse the extension of time. Furthermore, the court determined that any appeal did not have a real prospect of success, as the sentence was commensurate with the seriousness of the offending.
The court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence 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.