DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Wu v Queensland Police Service [2012] QDC 102
PARTIES:
GANG WU
(Applicant)V
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
65/11 and 66/11
DIVISION:
Appellate
PROCEEDING:
Sentence appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Magistrates Court, Beenleigh
DELIVERED ON:
8 May 2012
DELIVERED AT:
Beenleigh
HEARING DATE:
25 November 2011
JUDGE:
Dearden DCJ
ORDER:
Application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal refused.
Appeal against decision of magistrate refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – OTHER MATTERS
Whether sentence manifestly excessive – where single licence disqualification period for three separate offences – whether sentencing magistrate utilised s. 187 Penalties and Sentences Act – whether the applicant suffered a miscarriage of justice justifying a reopening of the sentence – where sentencing magistrate fell into multiple sentencing errors – where no miscarriage of justice in denying extension of time for filing a notice of appeal
LEGISLATION:
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld)
Justices Act 1886 (Qld)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)
CASES:
R v Croft [1999] 1 Qd R 386
COUNSEL:
C. Wilson for the applicant
B. Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
Buckland Allen for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent
On 18 May 2006 the applicant, Gang Wu, appeared in the Beenleigh Magistrates Court and pleaded guilty to charges of driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.056%,[1] unlicensed driving,[2] and speeding.[3]
[1]Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (TORUMA) s. 79(2).
[2]TORUMA, s. 78.
[3]Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 s. 20.
The learned sentencing magistrate imposed a single penalty for all three offences, fined Mr Wu $1,500, allowed him three months to pay that fine, in default 21 days imprisonment, and ordered that he was “disqualified for 12 months from holding or obtaining a driver licence”.[4]
[4]Sentencing decision (18 May 2006) pp. 1-2.
Application to reopen sentence
On 5 May 2011, Gang Wu made an application to a different learned magistrate seeking to reopen the sentence imposed by the earlier learned sentencing magistrate on 18 May 2006. The subsequent learned magistrate refused the application to reopen the original sentence, and concluded that, in any event, had the extension of time been granted to reopen the sentence, a different sentence would not have been imposed.[5]
[5]Reasons for judgment (20 May 2011) p. 6.
Grounds for appeal
Mr Wu appeals on the following grounds:
(1) The sentence was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances
(2) The [sentencing] magistrate erred in exceeding the maximum disqualification provided.
Time to appeal
The application for leave to appeal out of time was filed on 20 June 2011 (more than five years outside the appeal period).[6] Mr Wu has also brought an appeal (within time) against the decision of the subsequent learned magistrate on 20 May 2011, refusing to reopen…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wu v Queensland Police Service and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2012] QDC 102
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the sentencing magistrate utilised section 187 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, and whether the applicant suffered a miscarriage of justice justifying a reopening of the sentence. The court also needed to determine whether the sentencing magistrate fell into multiple sentencing errors and whether there was a miscarriage of justice in denying an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal.
The court found that the applicant’s sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the sentencing magistrate did not utilise section 187 of the Penalties and Sentences Act. The court found that the applicant did not suffer a miscarriage of justice justifying a reopening of the sentence. The court also found that the sentencing magistrate did not fall into multiple sentencing errors, and there was no miscarriage of justice in denying an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal. Therefore, the appeal against the decision of the magistrate was refused.
The orders made by the court were that the application for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal was refused and the appeal against the decision of the magistrate was refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal refused.
Appeal against decision of magistrate refused.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.