R v Georgiou
[2004] QCA 121
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 - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- R v Georgiou[2004] QCA 121
- Add to List
R v Georgiou[2004] QCA 121
R v Georgiou[2004] QCA 121
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | DC No 276 of 2001 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Sentence) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX | 21 April 2004 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 21 April 2004 |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P, McPherson JA and Williams JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made |
ORDER: | Application for extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence refused |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – PRACTICE AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – where applicant convicted of manslaughter under s 8 Criminal Code – where sentenced to 8 years imprisonment – where applicant was party to a break and enter in which an innocent bystander was killed – where applicant had prior convictions, but not for offences of violence – where application for leave to appeal against sentence more than two years and three months late – where applicant had earlier appealed against conviction and Attorney-General had earlier appealed against leniency of sentence but neither appeal had been successful – whether applicant had any prospects of success if an extension of time were granted – whether an extension of time should be granted within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence R v Georgiou & Ors; R v Georgiou & Anor; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 206; CA Nos 234, 244, 271, 265 and 266 of 2001, 14 June 2002, considered |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant was convicted on 23 August 2001 at the Supreme Court at Townsville, after a trial, of one count of manslaughter on 1 May 1999. He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. He now applies for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against his sentence.
The application is more than two years and three months late. As an explanation for the delay in bringing the application the applicant states:
"On the 14th of November 2003, the High Court of Australia dismissed my appeal against the conviction. I believe that I have exhausted all avenues to Appeal against the conviction, leaving me with only one avenues (sic) that I have not tryed (sic) and that is to Appeal against the sentence."
The offence arose out of the break and entry of, and stealing from, the Northside Day and Night Pharmacy, Belgian Gardens, Townsville at 1.30am on 1 May 1999. This applicant and Edwards pleaded guilty to the offence of break, enter and steal, and not guilty to the offence of murder. The deceased was a neighbour who heard the noise of the break into the pharmacy and challenged the offenders. The applicant was the lookout and was to have assisted Edwards, who was illiterate, in identifying the Sudafed to be taken from the pharmacy. Edwards shot and killed the deceased whilst he and the applicant fled. The jury convicted Edwards, who fired the fatal shot, of murder, and the applicant of manslaughter under s 8 of the Criminal Code. It seems their verdict was based on a finding that the applicant knew that Edwards was in possession of a firearm when they jointly committed the planned offence of break, enter and steal. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against his conviction to this Court and the Attorney-General appealed against the leniency of the sentence: (see R v Georgiou & Ors; R v Georgiou & Anor; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2002] QCA 206; CA Nos. 234, 244, 271, 265 and 266 of 2001, 14 June 2002.)
The applicant and his lawyers must have considered, when lodging the notice of appeal against conviction and responding to the Attorney-General's appeal against sentence, whether he should also apply for leave to appeal against his sentence. He plainly decided against that course. In that appeal, this Court noted the applicant's age and prior convictions for property and drug offences, and observed that the applicant's sentence could certainly have been fixed at a higher level without inviting intervention on appeal. Having regard to the principles applied in an Attorney-General's appeal, the court determined that a sentence of eight years imprisonment was not so inadequate as to warrant appellate intervention.
I respectfully agree with those observations. The applicant was responsible for unlawfully taking a life by his involvement in unlawful and potentially dangerous conduct. He was 31 years old with prior convictions. Although he had not previously been convicted of offences of violence, he had previously served short periods of imprisonment and had been offered the opportunity of community-based orders in the past. He did not have the mitigating factors of cooperation with the administration of justice through an early plea. In those circumstances, a sentence of eight years imprisonment cannot be said to be manifestly excessive.
The applicant's prospects of success in an application for leave to appeal against sentence, if an extension of time were granted, are negligible. It emerged in his oral submissions to this Court that the applicant's real concern is that he has not been granted parole and he fears that this is because the deceased was a Corrective Services officer. The granting of parole is not a matter relevant to this Court's determination of whether a sentence is manifestly excessive.
The applicant has failed to show any acceptable reason for his delay in bringing the application for leave to appeal against sentence within time, and has not demonstrated any prospects of success were an extension of time to be given. I would refuse the application.
McPHERSON JA: I agree.
WILLIAMS JA: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the order.