R v Spiero

The case of R v Spiero was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia by Doyle CJ, Duggan and Williams JJ. Spiero, the appellant, had previously been sentenced to 29 years and 6 months in prison for multiple armed robberies, and subsequently pleaded guilty to escaping from custody and housebreaking and larceny. The court was required to decide on Spiero's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by Prior J. The appeal grounds included the excessiveness of the sentence, disparity between the sentences imposed on Spiero and his co-offender, and the alleged reformation of Spiero since his recapture.

The court first examined the jurisdiction to entertain the second application for leave to appeal. It was determined that since the previous application for leave to appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, and not considered on its merits, a subsequent application could be made in certain circumstances. The court referred to Postiglione v The Queen and concluded that it was inappropriate to permit a subsequent application based on matters which were agitated on an earlier application. The court considered the merits of the grounds of appeal before returning to the procedural considerations.

The court found that the disparity in sentencing between Spiero and his co-offender, Mr Pepicelli, did not justify reducing Spiero's sentence. The court further found that the proposed evidence of Spiero's alleged reformation, health, and injuries sustained in prison would not be permitted as fresh evidence on an appeal against sentence. Lastly, the court held that the argument of manifest excessiveness of the sentence could not succeed on appeal.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application to set aside the order of the Full Court which summarily dismissed the application for leave to appeal dated 30 November 1991 and refused an extension of time within which to file the notice of application for leave to appeal dated 20 November 2000. Doyle CJ, Duggan, and Williams JJ agreed with Duggan J's reasoning and outcome.