R v Weekes - [2011] QCA 262

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Weekes [2011] QCA 262

PARTIES:

R
v
WEEKES, Simon Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 213 of 2011
SC No 15 of 2010
SC No 16 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

30 September 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Fryberg J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty on ex officio indictment to trafficking in cannabis sativa and other drug related offences – where the applicant’s admissions alone led to the trafficking charge – where the sentence proceeded on agreed facts – where the applicant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment – where the applicant contended that the head sentence was too harsh – where the applicant sought to withdraw his guilty plea – where the applicant contended that his epileptic condition led him to make detailed admissions to the police – where the applicant has a significant criminal history – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal were approximately 16 months out of time – whether the explanation for delay was satisfactory

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 180(1)(c)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(1)(a)

AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
R v Coleman [2006] QCA 442, cited
R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442, cited
R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, considered
R v Lammonde[2007] QCA 75, considered
R v Patena[1996] QCA 152, cited
R v Quaile [1988] 2 Qd R 103, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
R v Turner [2006] QCA 133, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
A D Anderson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: This application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by White JA.

WHITE JA: Simon Robert Weekes, who appeared for himself, seeks an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against a sentence of five and a half years imposed on him in the Supreme Court in Cairns on…

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 Weekes

Details

AGLC: R v Weekes [2011] QCA 262
Case: [2011] QCA 262
Decision Date: 30 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Weekes involved the appellant who pleaded guilty to trafficking in cannabis sativa and other drug-related offences. The appellant admitted to these charges ex officio indictment, resulting in the trafficking charge. The sentence was based on agreed facts, and the appellant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment. The appellant sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that he wanted to withdraw his guilty plea. He also argued that his epileptic condition led him to make detailed admissions to the police, which may have affected his plea. The appellant had a significant criminal history, which was a factor in the sentencing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate and whether the appellant's applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were timely. The court considered the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The court also considered the appellant's argument that his epileptic condition led him to make detailed admissions to the police, which may have affected his plea. The court noted that the appellant had a significant criminal history and that the offences were serious. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

The court also considered the appellant's applications for extension of time and leave to appeal. The applications were approximately 16 months out of time, and the court considered whether the explanation for the delay was satisfactory. The court found that the explanation was not satisfactory and refused the application for an extension of time. The court also found that the appellant had not shown that the delay was caused by exceptional circumstances.

The court refused the application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the appellant had not shown that the delay was caused by exceptional circumstances and that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory. The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate and that the appellant's applications for extension of time and leave to appeal were not timely.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Weekes [2011] QCA 262
PARTIES:	R v WEEKES, Simon Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 213 of 2011 SC No 15 of 2010 SC No 16 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:	30 September 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 September 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, White JA and Fryberg J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty on ex officio indictment to trafficking in cannabis sativa and other drug related offences – where the applicant’s admissions alone led to the trafficking charge – where the sentence proceeded on agreed facts – where the applicant was sentenced to five and a half years imprisonment – where the applicant contended that the head sentence was too harsh – where the applicant sought to withdraw his guilty plea – where the applicant contended that his epileptic condition led him to make detailed admissions to the police – where the applicant has a significant criminal history – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applications for extension of time and for leave to appeal were approximately 16 months out of time – whether the explanation for delay was satisfactory Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 180(1)(c) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13(1)(a) AB v The Queen (1999) 198 CLR 111; [1999] HCA 46, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited R v Coleman [2006] QCA 442, cited R v Elhusseini [1988] 2 Qd R 442, cited R v Johnson[2007] QCA 433, considered R v Lammonde[2007] QCA 75, considered R v Patena[1996] QCA 152, cited R v Quaile [1988] 2 Qd R 103, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Turner [2006] QCA 133, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf A D Anderson for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent