R v Whitehead - [2020] QCA 215

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Whitehead [2020] QCA 215

PARTIES:

R
v
WHITEHEAD, William James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 18 of 2020
DC No 1067 of 2018
DC No 2964 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 16 December 2019 (Barlow QC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

2 October 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 September 2020

JUDGES:

Morrison and Philippides JJA and Jackson J

ORDERS:

1. The application to extend time for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

2. The application to extend time for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, one count of using a carriage service to make available child pornography material and one count of knowingly possessing child exploitation material – where the applicant abandoned an application to vacate his pleas of guilty and proceeded to sentence – where on appeal the applicant would challenge the conviction on each count – where the applicant submitted that he entered pleas of guilty due to bad health and advice from his counsel and solicitors – where there is no suggestion that prior to and upon pleading guilty or prior to and upon the sentence hearing the applicant did not fully understand that he was entering pleas of guilty and was being sentenced on the footing that he had pleaded guilty

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicants submissions are not directed to any possible ground of appeal against sentence and do not suggest that there was an error made by the learned sentencing judge or that the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 228D, s 671, s 668D, s 668E
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 474.19(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13

R v Boimah[2017] QCA 50, cited
R v Nerbas [2012] 1 Qd R 362; [2011] QCA 199, cited
R v NQ[2013] QCA 402, cited
R v Sonter[2008] QCA 292, cited
R v Verrall [2013] 1 Qd R 587; [2012] QCA 310, cited

COUNSEL:

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

SOLICITORS:

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

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Jackson J and agree with those reasons and the orders his Honour proposes.
PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree with the reasons of Jackson J and the orders proposed by his Honour.
JACKSON J: On 16 December 2019, the applicant was convicted in…

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 Whitehead

Details

AGLC: R v Whitehead [2020] QCA 215
Case: [2020] QCA 215
Decision Date: 2 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Whitehead, the applicant appealed against both his conviction and sentence following a guilty plea to charges involving the use of a carriage service to access and make available child pornography, as well as possessing child exploitation material. The application for leave to appeal against the conviction and the sentence was heard by the court, which had to determine the validity of the applicant’s claims regarding the conditions under which he pleaded guilty, as well as the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's pleas of guilty were entered into validly, given the applicant's assertions that he was influenced by his health issues and the advice he received from his legal representatives. The court examined whether there was any indication that the applicant did not fully understand the nature of the pleas or the consequences of the sentence. Additionally, the court needed to assess the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence, considering whether there were grounds for interference with the sentence based on error or excessiveness.

The court concluded that there was no evidence suggesting that the applicant did not understand the nature of his pleas or the consequences of his sentencing. The applicant’s claims about the influence of his health and legal advice did not undermine the validity of his guilty pleas or the sentence imposed. Regarding the extension of time for the appeal against sentence, the court found that the applicant's submissions did not address any specific errors in the sentencing process nor suggest that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Therefore, both applications to extend the time for leave to appeal were refused.

The court’s final orders were that the application to extend time for leave to appeal against conviction was refused, as was the application to extend time for leave to appeal against sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to extend time for leave to appeal against conviction is refused.

2. The application to extend time 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 Whitehead [2020] QCA 215
PARTIES:	R v WHITEHEAD, William James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 18 of 2020 DC No 1067 of 2018 DC No 2964 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 16 December 2019 (Barlow QC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	2 October 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 September 2020
JUDGES:	Morrison and Philippides JJA and Jackson J
ORDERS:	1. The application to extend time for leave to appeal against conviction is refused. 2. The application to extend time for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of using a carriage service to access child pornography material, one count of using a carriage service to make available child pornography material and one count of knowingly possessing child exploitation material – where the applicant abandoned an application to vacate his pleas of guilty and proceeded to sentence – where on appeal the applicant would challenge the conviction on each count – where the applicant submitted that he entered pleas of guilty due to bad health and advice from his counsel and solicitors – where there is no suggestion that prior to and upon pleading guilty or prior to and upon the sentence hearing the applicant did not fully understand that he was entering pleas of guilty and was being sentenced on the footing that he had pleaded guilty CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant applied for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – where the applicants submissions are not directed to any possible ground of appeal against sentence and do not suggest that there was an error made by the learned sentencing judge or that the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 228D, s 671, s 668D, s 668E Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 474.19(1) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13 R v Boimah[2017] QCA 50, cited R v Nerbas [2012] 1 Qd R 362; [2011] QCA 199, cited R v NQ[2013] QCA 402, cited R v Sonter[2008] QCA 292, cited R v Verrall [2013] 1 Qd R 587; [2012] QCA 310, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf J A Geary for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent