R v Kenny
[2000] QCA 69
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- R v Kenny[2000] QCA 69
- Add to List
R v Kenny[2000] QCA 69
R v Kenny[2000] QCA 69
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
DAVIES JA
MOYNIHAN J
CA No 385 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.
KENNY, Robert Francis Applicant
BRISBANE
DATE 15/03/2000
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction of 11 May 1999 for assault occasioning bodily harm and also seeks an extension of time for leave to appeal against his sentence of 120 hours community service with a recorded conviction.
His current application is dated 22 November 1999. It is therefore five and a half months out of time. He has provided no reasons for the delay in his application.
He claims, in general terms, that inadmissible evidence was tendered against him in the District Court and that he has ascertained additional facts favourable to him since his conviction although nothing has been placed before this Court in an appropriate form.
The applicant faces a number of difficulties. Firstly, he pleaded guilty before his Honour Judge Nase in the District Court. His second and even more significant difficulty is that he has already made an application for an extension of time to appeal in respect of this matter. See R v. Kenny [1999] QCA 399, CA No 246 of 1999, 17 September 1999.
I have read the transcript of the proceedings before this Court on that occasion. The applicant argued that he ought to be allowed to withdraw his plea of guilty as he pleaded guilty without legal advice because the Judge told him his trial had to proceed and he was unable to present evidence to the Court which he believed would assist him.
He claimed he could not have dislocated the complainant's shoulder as he was much shorter than the complainant. He also claimed that the sentence imposed of 120 hours community service was manifestly excessive. He would have preferred a $500 fine even though he was not working at the time of sentence and he had a bad back and had no ability to pay a fine.
This Court considered the application in CA Number 246 of 1999 on its merits and concluded that applicant had failed to establish any grounds justifying the setting aside of the plea of guilty.
The Court also determined that the sentence imposed was well within the appropriate range for an offence of this type and that there would be no substance in any application for leave to appeal against that sentence if an extension of time were granted.
As this very application has already been dealt with by this Court on its merits, the applicant has no standing to bring a fresh application. See R v. Smith [1968] QWN 50; R v. Smith (No. 2) [1969] QWN 10; R v. Pettigrew [1987] 1 Qd R 601; and R v. Brain (1999) SASR 92.
In my view, the application must be refused.
DAVIES JA: I agree.
MOYNIHAN J: So do I.
THE PRESIDENT: The order is: the application is refused.