R v Satui
[2002] QCA 323
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
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v Satui[2002] QCA 323
- Add to List
R v Satui[2002] QCA 323
R v Satui[2002] QCA 323
COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
MACKENZIE J
HOLMES J
CA No 165 of 2002
THE QUEEN
v.
MAKA SATUIApplicant
BRISBANE
DATE 23/08/2002
JUDGMENT
DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 17 March 1997 to one offence of burglary, two of deprivation of liberty, two of armed robbery, three of entering a dwelling house with intent, one of attempted armed robbery and three of stealing. The offences occurred between 9 November 1996 and 15 November 1996. On the same day he was sentenced to an effective term of nine years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after serving three and a half years of that term. A declaration was made that 122 days pre-sentence custody be regarded as part of the sentence served.
On 13 May this year the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal against that sentence. The basis of the application, as appeared in the document which was filed, was that at the time the sentence was imposed the learned sentencing judge could not have been aware of the possibility of the applicant's deportation under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In consequence it was submitted the integrity of the original sentencing determination was somehow undermined. In my opinion there is no basis for this contention. There is no reason to think that the possibility or even likelihood of the applicant's deportation will have any effect on the sentence which he is required to serve.
The applicant in his oral submissions before us has also relied on his lack of understanding of what his rights were in respect of sentence. Again, that is not a satisfactory reason for an extension of time particularly having regard to the very long time that has lapsed between the imposition of the sentence which has been imposed. Nor is there any other reason to think that the sentence which was imposed was in any way excessive.
Accordingly, in my opinion, the application should be dismissed.
MACKENZIE J: I agree.
HOLMES J: I agree.
DAVIES JA: The application is dismissed.