Whitfield v The Queen

The case of *Whitfield v The Queen* concerned applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal against the full restoration of a suspended sentence. The applicant, Whitfield, sought to challenge the sentence imposed by Riley CJ on 20 December 2012, arguing it was manifestly excessive and that his legal representation had been inadequate.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether there was inadequate preparation time for the plea on sentence, whether counsel failed to contest alleged breaches of the suspended sentence, whether the sentencing judge erred in finding breaches proved, and whether counsel failed to explain the applicant's legal rights or apply for an adjournment. These grounds stemmed from the applicant's conviction for aggravated robbery, which also constituted a breach of a previously suspended sentence.

The court found that none of the applicant's grounds demonstrated that the plea on sentence miscarried due to counsel's conduct or any other reason, nor did they show that Riley CJ erred in sentencing. The breaches of the suspended sentence – failure to complete a rehabilitation program, absconding from the jurisdiction, and fresh offending – were not contested, as the applicant's own evidence admitted to failing to complete the program and absconding. While the applicant provided evidence regarding his exclusion from the rehabilitation program, this was seen as an explanation for the breach, not a denial of it. The court noted that Riley CJ did not accept the applicant's evidence regarding these circumstances and made no error in doing so. The applicant's concessions during oral evidence confirmed his admission to breaches and a lack of full compliance with the program.

The applications for an extension of time and leave to appeal were dismissed.