R v Versac

Case [2014] QCA 181


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Versac [2014] QCA 181

PARTIES:

R
v
VERSAC, Alex Christian Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 293 of 2013
SC No 315 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

5 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 June 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant, after having pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a dangerous drug, was found guilty after trial of one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of dangerous driving, and five other counts related to drug offending – where the applicant was sentenced in March 2011 and received a head sentence of ten years and six months imprisonment – where the primary judge did not declare as pre-sentence custody 20 months the applicant had already spent in custody – where the applicant pursued an unsuccessful appeal against conviction – where the applicant has filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against his sentence – whether good reason has been shown to account for the delay in filing his sentence appeal – where the applicant argues the primary judge made erroneous factual findings and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence – whether, considering the strength of the proposed appeal, it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 161A

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, considered
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Assurson (2007) 174 A Crim R 78; [2007] QCA 273, distinguished
R v Ergun, Morris, Phillips and Franco, unreported, Martin J, SC No 605 of 2011, 23 December 2011, distinguished
R v Falzon, unreported, Atkinson J, SC No 889 of 2008, 18 May 2009, considered
R v Le[2001] QCA 290, distinguished
R v Milos, unreported, Douglas J, SC No 817 of 2011, 10 May 2013, considered
R v Rodd; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2008] QCA 341, distinguished
R v Saunders [2007] QCA 93, considered
R v Tait
[1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied
R v Tilley; ex parte A-G[1999] QCA 424, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. FRASER JA:  The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against his sentences imposed for eight offences.  He was convicted on a plea of guilty to count 7 and he was found…

Continue reading R v Versac

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Versac [2014] QCA 181
Case
[2014] QCA 181
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who had previously pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a dangerous drug, was convicted by a jury on one count of trafficking in a dangerous drug, one count of dangerous driving, and five other counts related to drug offending. He was sentenced in March 2011 to a head sentence of ten years and six months imprisonment. The applicant's appeal against his convictions was dismissed, and he has now applied for an extension of time to appeal against his sentence. The primary judge did not declare as pre-sentence custody the 20 months the applicant had already spent in custody.

The central issue before the court was whether good reason had been demonstrated to account for the delay in filing the sentence appeal. The applicant contended that the primary judge made erroneous factual findings and imposed a manifestly excessive sentence. The court needed to weigh the strength of the proposed appeal against the interests of justice in granting an extension of time.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated good reason for the delay in filing his appeal against sentence. The applicant's assertions of error in the primary judge's factual findings were not compelling enough to warrant an extension of time. Additionally, the court did not consider the sentence to be manifestly excessive. Given these factors, the court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the extension. Consequently, the application was refused.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the refusal of the application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.