Williams v. The Queen - [2008] QCA 65

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
MACKENZIE AJA
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 20 of 2008

KELLY SHEREE WILLIAMS	Applicant
v.
THE QUEEN	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/03/2008

JUDGMENT

APPLICANT conducted her own case

MR M J COPLEY (instructed by the Department of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Justice Chesterman will deliver his reasons first.

CHESTERMAN J: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her in the District Court of Ipswich on 18 October 2007. The application was filed on 23 January 2008, two months out of time.

The applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of armed robbery, one in company, and one with personal violence, one count of assault occasioning bodily harm in company, one count of stealing a credit card, and one count of fraudulently using the credit card to obtain goods and services to the value of $1400, and one count of breaching bail. As well, the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of summary offences.

She was sentenced to a term of four years imprisonment on each of the armed robberies, and a term of three years imprisonment for the assault occasioning bodily harm while in company. She was sentenced to six months imprisonment for stealing, and three months for the fraud. No penalty was imposed for the breach of bail. The summary offences were visited with one month's imprisonment each.

All sentences were to be served concurrently and 171 days, which the applicant had spent in custody, was declared to be time already served under the sentences. The learned judge fixed 30 October 2008 as the date on which the applicant will become eligible for parole, that being the date which is 18 months from the date on which the applicant was taken into custody.

The application to extend time should be refused unless the applicant demonstrates that it is in the interests of justice that she be allowed to apply for leave to appeal against sentence out of time. This normally calls for an inquiry into the reason for the delay, and its length, and whether the applicant has any worthwhile grounds of appeal.

The delay here is not great, but it is almost completely unexplained. All the applicant says is that "I did not understand my sentence. I thought I had a parole release. That is what I thought I heard in the court at sentence time. It has just been explained to me that I have to apply for parole and I did not understand this before."

For the purposes of the application, I am prepared to accept the applicant did not understand the full import of the sentence imposed upon her and that when she realised the implication of the order for parole made by the sentencing judge she came to the opinion that the sentence was excessive. That is some explanation for the relatively brief delay in applying for leave to appeal. The question then becomes whether…

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 Williams v. The Queen

Details

AGLC: Williams v The Queen [2008] QCA 65
Case: [2008] QCA 65
Decision Date: 27 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Williams v The Queen, the applicant, Kelly Sheree Williams, sought an extension of time to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court of Ipswich on 18 October 2007. Williams pleaded guilty to multiple counts of armed robbery, assault occasioning bodily harm, stealing, and fraudulently using a credit card, among other offences. She was sentenced to imprisonment terms for each offence, which were to run concurrently, with a parole eligibility date set for 30 October 2008. Williams applied for an extension of time to appeal the sentences, two months out of the statutory limit. The key legal issues before the court were whether the delay in filing the application was justified and whether Williams had any worthwhile grounds of appeal.

The court examined the reasons for the delay and found that Williams' explanation was insufficient. She claimed she did not understand her sentence and believed she would be released on parole on the specified eligibility date. The court found that while Williams did not fully comprehend the sentencing implications, this did not sufficiently explain the delay. The court also assessed the merits of the potential appeal, noting the severity of the crimes committed by Williams, including armed robberies and assaults while on bail. The court concluded that an appeal would have no realistic chance of success, as the sentences were appropriate given the nature of the offences and Williams' extensive criminal history.

The court concluded that the application to extend time should be refused. The court emphasized that while the delay was not excessively long, it was largely unexplained. The court found no grounds for an appeal, as the sentences were justified by the seriousness of the crimes and Williams' criminal record. The court also noted that the sentencing judge could not set a specific parole release date but only an eligibility date, which was within the judge's powers. The application was therefore dismissed, and Williams was advised to prepare her parole application and work towards its approval.

Orders