R v Stemm - [2010] QCA 141

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stemm [2010] QCA 141

PARTIES:

R
v
STEMM, Brenton Victor
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 67 of 2010
DC No 861 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Toowoomba

DELIVERED ON:

11 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 May 2010

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time refused

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of two counts common assault, one count enter dwelling by break and use violence, two counts assault occasioning bodily harm and one count sexual assault – where applicant sought extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against conviction – where the application was over three months out of time – where applicant claimed a miscarriage of justice on the grounds that he pleaded guilty due to his confused state of mind, depression and anxiety and pressure from his lawyers – whether the applicant has shown that he has a viable appeal against his convictions – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant sentenced to four years with a parole eligibility date after serving 12 months’ imprisonment – where applicant sought extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence – whether sentences were manifestly excessive – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered
R v Billy [1997] QCA 290, considered
R v Forrester (2008) 180 A Crim R 510; [2008] QCA 12, considered
R v Ramm [2008] QCA 13, considered
R v Troop[2009] QCA 176, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MUIR JA: I agree that the application for leave to appeal should be refused for the reasons given by Mullins J.

WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Mullins J and agree with her Honour and the order which she proposes. I would only add that while the applicant before us emphasised that the complainant’s conduct towards him was often physically violent, he did not seek to argue that he had any defence to the charges in respect to which he pleaded guilty.

MULLINS J: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Toowoomba on 24 November 2009 to two counts of common assault, one count of enter dwelling by…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Stemm

Details

AGLC: R v Stemm [2010] QCA 141
Case: [2010] QCA 141
Decision Date: 11 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to various criminal charges, including common assault, enter dwelling by break and use violence, assault occasioning bodily harm, and sexual assault. The applicant subsequently sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the applicant had demonstrated a viable appeal against his convictions or sentences and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension, despite the application being over three months out of time.

The court examined the applicant's claims of a miscarriage of justice due to his alleged confused state of mind, depression, anxiety, and pressure from his lawyers. It considered whether these factors justified an extension of time for lodging the appeal. The court also assessed whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, which could warrant an extension to seek leave to appeal against the sentence. After a thorough examination, the court found that the applicant had not shown a viable appeal against his convictions or sentences. It also concluded that granting the extension was not in the interests of justice.

In light of these findings, the court dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time. The court held that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient grounds to warrant an extension of time, and the interests of justice did not support granting such an extension. Consequently, the court refused the application for an extension of time.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time 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.

CITATION:	R v Stemm [2010] QCA 141
PARTIES:	R v STEMM, Brenton Victor (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 67 of 2010 DC No 861 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Toowoomba
DELIVERED ON:	11 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 May 2010
JUDGES:	Muir and White JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant was convicted on his pleas of guilty of two counts common assault, one count enter dwelling by break and use violence, two counts assault occasioning bodily harm and one count sexual assault – where applicant sought extension of time within which to lodge an appeal against conviction – where the application was over three months out of time – where applicant claimed a miscarriage of justice on the grounds that he pleaded guilty due to his confused state of mind, depression and anxiety and pressure from his lawyers – whether the applicant has shown that he has a viable appeal against his convictions – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant sentenced to four years with a parole eligibility date after serving 12 months’ imprisonment – where applicant sought extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence – whether sentences were manifestly excessive – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, considered R v Billy [1997] QCA 290, considered R v Forrester (2008) 180 A Crim R 510; [2008] QCA 12, considered R v Ramm [2008] QCA 13, considered R v Troop[2009] QCA 176, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Merrin for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent