R v Williams - [2002] QCA 142

[2002] QCA 142

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
WILLIAMS JA
HELMAN J

CA No 44 of 2002

THE QUEEN

IAN ROBERT WILLIAMS

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/04/2002

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: I will ask Justice Helman to give judgment in this matter.

HELMAN J: The applicant seeks the extension of the time within which to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence passed on him on 14 August 2001 in the Supreme Court at Brisbane. The ground of the appeal, if it were permitted to proceed, would be that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The applicant was charged with the attempted murder of Pirjo Kristina Ikonen and, alternatively, with doing grievous bodily harm to her with intent to do some grievous bodily harm. It was alleged in each case that the offence took place on 13 April 2000 at Noosa Heads, Queensland. The applicant pleaded guilty to the alternative count and that plea was accepted in full discharge of the indictment.
He was sentenced to imprisonment for eleven years, and it was declared by the learned sentencing judge that the conviction was a conviction of a serious violent offence. The applicant had been in pre-sentence custody from
13 April 2000 until the day he was sentenced, and the 488 days was declared to have been time served under the sentence.

The application was filed on 13 February 2002, approximately five months out of time. The applicant explains that delay by saying that he gave instructions to his solicitor on the day he was sentenced to institute an application for leave to appeal, and followed those instructions with letters dated 7 September 2001 and
16 October 2001 to the same effect. None of those instructions were followed, and by a letter dated 22 January 2002 he sent a further letter by registered mail giving instructions to institute an application for leave to appeal against sentence, and after that the application was filed.

In R v. Tait [1999] 2 Qd.R. 667 this appears concerning applications for the extension of time:

"The recent approach of this Court to the question of extending time in criminal appeals is sufficiently illustrated by R v. Mentink and a number of unreported cases in this Court. These suggest that the Court will examine whether there is any good reason shown to account for the delay and consider overall whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension. That may involve some assessment of whether the appeal seems to be a viable one. It is not to be expected that in all such cases the Court will be able to assess whether the prospective appeal is viable or not, but when it is feasible to do so the Court will often find it appropriate to make some provisional assessment of the strength of the applicant's appeal and take that into account in deciding whether it is a fit case for granting the extension. Other factors include prejudice to the respondent, but in the case of criminal…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2002] QCA 142
Case: [2002] QCA 142
Decision Date: 17/04/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Williams, the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against a sentence passed on him by the Supreme Court at Brisbane on 14 August 2001. The applicant, Ian Robert Williams, pleaded guilty to the charge of grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to imprisonment for eleven years. The ground of the appeal, if permitted to proceed, would be that the sentence was manifestly excessive. Williams filed the application approximately five months out of the time limit, citing delays due to his solicitor not following his instructions to institute an application for leave to appeal.

The court examined whether there was a good reason shown to account for the delay and whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The court considered the horrific circumstances of the offence and its aftermath, as well as sentences imposed in comparable cases. The court concluded that the application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal against the sentence should be refused, as the offence was premeditated, occurred while a domestic violence order was in effect, and had disastrous consequences for the complainant. The court also noted that the applicant had a history of violence, and there was no reasonable prospect of any appeal against sentence succeeding.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the applications to extend time and for leave to appeal against sentence. The judges agreed that the application should be refused and that the offence was not an isolated act of violence. The court emphasised that the applicant's behaviour was driven by drugs but could not excuse the terrible crime he committed.

Orders