R v The Queen

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v R [2002] QCA 539

PARTIES:

R
v
R
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 367 of 2002
DC No 154 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:

6 December 2002

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 December 2002

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant brought application for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – where applicant raised issues not relevant to application – where applicant conceded at hearing the sentence was not manifestly excessive – where application dismissed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B G Campbell for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Justice Helman will deliver his reasons first.

HELMAN J: On 21 October this year the applicant came before the District Court at Southport to answer charges in an indictment presented on 26 March this year. The first count was one of attempted armed robbery with personal violence. The second, alternative, count was an allegation of his unlawfully assaulting a woman thereby doing her bodily harm while armed with a dangerous instrument, an iron bar. The applicant pleaded guilty to the second count and that plea was accepted by the Crown in full discharge of the indictment. The learned sentencing Judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for two years to be suspended after the applicant had served six months with an operational period of three years.

The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against his sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive, but in the course of the hearing today has conceded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and has made no complaint about it.

What he has said in relation to this proceeding is that at the moment he feels endangered by possible threats from other prisoners and the likelihood of his being assaulted by other prisoners. We have discussed that with him and with the Crown Prosecutor, Mr Campbell, and have suggested that steps might be taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring the applicant's fears to the attention of the relevant prison authorities. The matter about which he has spoken is, in my view, not relevant to the sentence application, and therefore it follows that the application should be dismissed.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I agree.

PHILIPPIDES J: Yes, I also agree.

THE PRESIDENT: So your application is refused, Mr R, but the Director of Prosecutions will refer those matters to the prison authorities.

-----

The case before the court involved an applicant seeking leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in a criminal matter. The applicant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The applicant raised additional issues that were not relevant to the application for leave to appeal. During the hearing, the applicant conceded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the application did not meet the criteria for leave to appeal.

The legal issue the court had to address was whether the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court had to consider if the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the applicant's additional issues were relevant. The applicant's concession that the sentence was not manifestly excessive further complicated the matter. The court needed to determine whether the application could still proceed or if it should be dismissed.

The court found that the applicant's concession effectively rendered the application moot. The court held that the additional issues raised by the applicant were not relevant to the application for leave to appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, finding that it was not manifestly excessive and that the applicant had not demonstrated a valid ground for appeal. The court emphasised that applications for leave to appeal must be strictly adhered to the grounds specified and that irrelevant issues should not be raised.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v R [2002] QCA 539
PARTIES:	R v R (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 367 of 2002 DC No 154 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EXTEMPORE ON:	6 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 December 2002
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant brought application for leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive – where applicant raised issues not relevant to application – where applicant conceded at hearing the sentence was not manifestly excessive – where application dismissed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent