R v Remeeus
[2004] QCA 443
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 Remeeus[2004] QCA 443
- Add to List
R v Remeeus[2004] QCA 443
R v Remeeus[2004] QCA 443
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Sentence) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 18 November 2004 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 18 November 2004 |
JUDGES: | McPherson and Williams JJA and Philippides J |
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 – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – where applicant convicted of five counts of armed robbery, two of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, two of stealing, one of burglary with violence and one of assault occasioning bodily harm – applicant sentenced to eight years imprisonment – whether any prospect of success in an appeal against sentence – whether extension of time should be granted |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant was sentenced on the 12th of December 2003 to a head sentence of eight years imprisonment.
On the 17th of September 2004 he filed a notice of application for an extension of time to appeal against sentence and an application for leave to appeal against sentence. In the handwritten material which supported the application and in his oral submissions today, the applicant referred to the fact that he was suffering mentally, largely related to his dependency on drugs, when initially sentenced and in consequence he was not in a fit state to make a decision as to whether or not to appeal until much later.
The principal point that he makes in the written material is that he was not given credit for time spent in presentence custody. It is clear from the remarks of the learned sentencing Judge that she gave him credit for one year 10 months and 22 days in custody. It was not possible to make a declaration that that was time spent pursuant to the sentence because he was also being held in custody on other unrelated charges. It appears that the Judge did make a reduction from the sentence which would otherwise have been imposed because of the time already spent in custody.
Tallying up from his written material the period the applicant was in presentence custody one could arrive at a period as long as two years one month; in other words, approximately two months more than that was allowed by the sentencing Judge. That, in the circumstances, is not such a discrepancy as would warrant this Court interfering.
So far as the offences are concerned, I would just briefly record that they involve five counts of armed robbery, two of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, two of stealing, one of burglary with violence and one of assault occasioning bodily harm.
With regard to the armed robbery offences, on two occasions a knife was used and on three occasions a gun was used in order to threaten the persons from whom property was stolen. The offences were particularly threatening. On one occasion a 13 year old girl was placed in a head lock while the knife was being brandished.
In those circumstances, notwithstanding the age of the applicant, he was aged in his early 30s when the offences were committed, and the fact that he had no previous convictions, a head sentence of eight years was clearly within range. Even if an extension of time was granted, there are no prospects of the applicant successfully challenging the sentence which was imposed.
In the circumstances, the application for an extension of time should be refused.
McPHERSON JA: Yes, I agree.
PHILIPPIDES J: I agree.
McPHERSON JA: The application is refused.