R v Stringer Summary | CaseChat AU

[1998] QCA 327

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P THOMAS JA CULLINANE J

CA No 260 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

MICHAEL JOHN STRINGER

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 16/09/98
160998 T12/RB28 M/T COA234/98
THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for extension of time
within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.
The applicant is serving his term of imprisonment in Lotus
Glen Correctional Centre and has requested not to appear
personally in his application today. He has asked that the
application be dealt with in accordance with the written
submissions he has sent to the Court.

The applicant was convicted in the District Court at Innisfail on 17 February 1998 of one count of rape and was sentenced to four years imprisonment. He pleaded guilty on the second day of the trial. The application for extension of time within which to appeal is dated 10 August 1998. It was therefore well over four months out of time.

The applicant's written submissions indicate that he has always been desirous of appealing against the sentence imposed and has discussed this with his various legal representatives at different times. He understood Legal Aid Queensland were to submit an application but the person handling his case left L.A.Q. before doing so.

He then sought to engage private solicitors in Cairns but could not afford them. Another firm of solicitors attended on him and sought Legal Aid on his behalf. After three weeks this was not granted. He has appealed from that decision and is still awaiting the outcome. In any case he decided he should appeal to the Court without legal representation and represent himself.

160998 T12/RB28 M/T COA234/98
There is no independent evidence supporting the applicant's
claims of his difficulties with legal representation although
at face value he seems to have established some reason for the
delay in making this application. It is noted, however, there
is some conflict between his claims in his submissions to this
Court and in the extract from his application for Legal Aid
which he has attached to his submissions.

We have had the opportunity today to read the sentencing submissions made by barristers and the sentencing Judge's remarks in this matter.

The circumstances of the offence are as follows. The applicant, who had been drinking heavily and smoking marijuana, was staying overnight at the house of his employer and the 20 year old complainant. The complainant was asleep naked next to her de facto in their bedroom and awoke during the night to find the applicant on top of her having intercourse with her. When she awoke the applicant rolled off her saying, "Shh ... sorry mate". He then left the room.

The effects on the complainant of this offence have been very detrimental and she was still receiving counselling at the time of sentence, some two years after the offence occurred.

On these facts the sentence imposed seems a lenient one and
indeed was within the range sought by defence counsel,
although defence counsel also requested an early
recommendation for parole. Four years imprisonment for the
offence of rape on these facts does not seem a heavy sentence.
160998 T12/RB28 M/T COA234/98
The reasons put forward by the applicant for delay in applying
to this Court for leave to appeal against sentence may, if
established, justify an extension of time within which to
appeal against sentence, but more importantly there are no
real or substantial prospects of success of any appeal on the
facts of this case. I would therefore refuse the application.

THOMAS JA: I agree. In relation to the quantum of the sentence I would confine my remarks to expressing the view that, having regard to the submissions made and the circumstances, there are no reasonable prospects of a successful appeal. I accordingly agree that leave to extend time should be refused.

CULLINANE J: I also agree that the application should be refused for the reason given by the President.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application for extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

-----

The case of R v Stringer involves the applicant, Michael John Stringer, who applied for an extension of time to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed after his conviction for rape in the District Court at Innisfail. The applicant had been sentenced to four years imprisonment following a guilty plea on the second day of his trial. The application for extension of time was made on 10 August 1998, well beyond the four-month limit set by law. The applicant argued that his delay in making the application was due to difficulties in securing legal representation, including being unable to afford private solicitors and a pending appeal against a decision by Legal Aid Queensland. Despite these claims, the court found that there was no independent evidence to support the applicant's assertions, and there was some inconsistency in his submissions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's reasons for the delay were sufficient to warrant an extension of time and whether there were any substantial prospects of success in an appeal against the sentence. The court examined the circumstances of the offence, which involved the applicant having intercourse with a 20-year-old woman who was asleep in the room next to her de facto partner. The woman had been heavily drinking and smoking marijuana at the time and had been staying at the applicant's employer's house. The court also considered the impact of the offence on the complainant, who had been receiving counselling for two years post-offence. The court found that the sentence of four years imprisonment, which was within the range sought by defence counsel and included a request for early parole recommendation, was lenient given the circumstances.

The court concluded that while the applicant's reasons for delay might justify an extension of time if substantiated, there were no substantial prospects of success in an appeal against the sentence. The President, Thomas JA, and Cullinane J all agreed that the application should be refused, and the order was made accordingly. The application for extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against sentence was denied.

R v Stringer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established