R v Wright

[1998] QCA 184

[1998] QCA 184

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DEMACK J
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 131 of 1998

THE QUEEN

v.

ROSS WRIGHT  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/06/98

JUDGMENT

DEMACK J:  This is an application by Ross Wright for extension of time within which to appeal against a sentence of five years imprisonment proposed by Judge Wall in the District Court in Townsville following upon the applicant's conviction of the offence of grievous bodily harm.

The conviction arises out of a jury trial and the view taken by the trial Judge was that the jury's verdict was consistent with the knowledge on the part of the applicant that he was holding a glass in his hand, that he deliberately struck the complainant in the eye with the glass and that the glass broke as a result.

The consequence for the victim was described by the sentencing Judge as catastrophic and traumatic because the victim lost his left eye.  The notice of application for leave to appeal was filed on 20 April 1998, the sentence having been passed on 12 February 1998.  The explanation given in the notice of application for extension of time within which to appeal was "a lack of communication between legal representative and myself because of incarceration".

Mr Wright expanded on that first statement in his remarks to the Court.  He says that his solicitor carried on practice at Redcliffe and he was incarcerated in Townsville.  The trial took place in Townsville.  The explanation was that there was limited communication possible by telephone and that Mr Wright had to rely on his wife to assist him with communication.

He understood that there was a time within which to appeal.  He says that matters between him and his solicitor were not resolved prior to that and he thought that he had lost his right to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. Subsequently, he was told that he could apply for this extension of time. 

There is nothing disclosed in that recitation of facts which would ordinarily encourage the Court to extend time.  It was a case where the applicant was aware of the time limit that was required and was unable to come to the conclusion during that time assisted by legal advice that he ought to lodge an application for leave to appeal.

In addition, the sentence which was imposed seems to me to be within a proper range.  The sentence was five years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two years.  The actual blow with the glass had followed an earlier striking with the fist and consequently the crime was a very serious one. 

Judge Wall in detailed sentencing remarks referred to the impact that the wound had had upon the victim. He referred extensively to the issues that have to be considered under the Penalties and Sentences Act by a sentencing Judge. He referred to decisions of this Court as setting a standard for sentencing for offences of this kind. It seems to me that the sentence that he has imposed is within proper range.

Consequently, here the application is one where there is no strong basis for saying that time should be extended and the application is in respect of a sentence where there is no reasonable prospect of it being changed if an extension of time within which to appeal are granted.  In my view, the application should be refused.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  I agree.

CHESTERMAN J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.

-----