Shane Doble v The Queen

[2005] ACTCA 33

SHANE DOBLE v THE QUEEN [2005] ACTCA 33 (10 AUGUST 2005)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

No. ACTCA 30-2005
No. SCC 59 of 2005

Judges:         Gray, Connolly and Spender JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            10 August 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 30-2005
  )          No. SCC 59 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHANE DOBLE

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Spender JJ
Date:  10 August 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE       )          No. ACTCA 30-2005
  )          No. SCC 59 of 2005
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY    )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:SHANE DOBLE

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Gray, Connolly and Spender JJ
Date:  10 August 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. The court has before it grounds of appeal which appear to be twofold, one that there was no representation when the appellant was sentenced, and the second, that he wished to complete rehabilitation in the community as referred to in a community alcohol and drug assessment report.

1. In relation to the second, that is, of course, not a proper ground of appeal.  In relation to the first, the court can deal with the matter on the papers that have been put before it.  In light of those papers and the fact that the appellant dismissed his previous representation when appearing before the Chief Justice on the sentence, there would appear to be no basis for the appeal. 

1. Having regard to what took place before the Chief Justice, we see no error in the Chief Justice proceeding in this matter, at the appellant’s request, to sentence him.

1. In relation to the overall sentence of 12 months for the three offences that the appellant received, it is clearly a sentence which does not call for adverse comment, indeed the appellant may well be regarded as fortunate in relation to the length of that sentence.

1. It might also be added that the suspension of that sentence after serving a period of nine months is, in its terms, a minimum time that the appellant could expect to spend in prison for these offences.  The question of the time previously spent in custody for these offences was also properly dealt with and we can see no reason at all why this court should interfere in the appellant’s favour with the sentence that was imposed.

1. Having regard to the fact that there are, in reality, no proper grounds of appeal in relation to this matter, we dismiss this appeal.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Date:          15 August  2005

Counsel for the Appellant:  Self litigant
Counsel for the Respondent:  Mr R Refshauge
Solicitor for the Respondent:  ACT Director of Public Prosecution
Date of hearing:  10 August 2005
Date of judgment:  10 August 2005