R v Yates Summary | CaseChat AU

[1994] QCA 575

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

CA No 403 of 1994

THE QUEEN

JOHN JAMES YATES Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/11/94

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: An application for extending time to appeal against sentence is brought and the applicant sets out in an addendum to his notice the grounds on which he relies. The only complication in his position was that due to the way in which his matter was dealt with he lost the benefit of some 10 weeks in prior custody that could have been available to him. In no other respect does there seem to be justification shown for extending time for his bringing an application.

The reason why, in the circumstances, he was not able to get the benefit of the prior time in custody is that when he was dealt with in one particular Court, the District Court, on 18 March 1994 all of the matters which were outstanding against him were not dealt with at the one time. Had they all been dealt with at the one time, for example, in the Supreme Court on that date it could then have been said that he had been in custody for the 10 weeks to which I have referred because of the matters that would then have been before the Court and for no other reason in terms of the Penalties and Sentences Act.

In these circumstances it seems to me it is appropriate to make some mild modification of the order of the Judge recommending eligibility for parole. The date fixed by the Judge for that purpose was 12 July 1995. I am of the view that this Court should extend time for making the application and grant the application and alter the sentence by changing the recommendation date for consideration for parole from 12 July 1995 to 3 May 1995. In all other respects the sentence imposed, or the sentences imposed should remain as they presently stand and I would grant then extension of time and further orders to that extent only.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

McPHERSON: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: That is the order of the Court.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Yates was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland, with Macrossan CJ, Davies JA, and McPherson J presiding. The applicant, John James Yates, sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether Yates's application for an extension of time should be granted, considering the circumstances that led to him not receiving credit for 10 weeks of prior custody. The applicant contended that his matters were not dealt with simultaneously, which resulted in him not receiving the benefit of the prior custody time.

The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant and concluded that it was appropriate to grant the extension of time for the appeal. The court found that the failure to address all outstanding matters at once in the District Court prevented Yates from receiving credit for the 10 weeks of prior custody he would have otherwise received. The court determined that the recommendation date for consideration of parole should be modified from 12 July 1995 to 3 May 1995, while maintaining the rest of the sentence as it stood. The court granted the extension of time for the appeal and modified the parole recommendation date as stated.

Davies JA and McPherson J both agreed with the Chief Justice's reasoning and decision. The court's order was to grant the extension of time for the appeal and to alter the recommendation date for consideration for parole from 12 July 1995 to 3 May 1995. In all other respects, the sentence imposed was to remain unchanged.

R v Yates

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established