R v Youssef
[2005] QCA 290
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 Youssef[2005] QCA 290
- Add to List
R v Youssef[2005] QCA 290
R v Youssef[2005] QCA 290
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | R v Youssef [2005] QCA 290 |
PARTIES: | R |
FILE NO/S: | CA No 93 of 2005 DC 1499 of 2004 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED ON: | 15 August 2005 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 15 August 2005 |
JUDGES: | McPherson and Keane JJA and Dutney J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made |
ORDER: | Application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed |
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 was convicted on plea of guilty of a string of offences culminating in a bank robbery - where the applicant did not deny having committed the offences but claimed to have been affected by bipolar disorder - whether the claimed bipolar disorder had any relevance to the applicant's criminal responsibility - whether the applicant's sentence appeared excessive having regard to the serious criminality involved - whether an extension of time should be granted |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf R J Pointing for respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent |
KEANE JA: On 1 July 2004, the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of serious offences which occurred on 18 February 2004, when the applicant hijacked a motor vehicle which he then used in a bank robbery while pretending to be armed with a semi-automatic firearm. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a recommendation for post prison community based release after serving 18 months.
On the 8th April 2005, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant has given no sufficient explanation for the delay of eight months in seeking to challenge his conviction and sentence.
The applicant does not, in his application, suggest that he did not commit the offences. He seems plainly to acknowledge that he did commit them. Rather the applicant seeks now to be dealt with under the "Mental Health Act", as he puts it, on the basis that he suffers from bipolar disorder.
A relevant question for this Court on this application is whether there is any prospect that his conviction or sentence might be set aside on appeal.
As to his conviction, there is nothing in the material put before this Court to suggest that the applicant's disorder might have excused him from criminal responsibility for the offences or in any way undermind the integrity of his plea of guilty so as to justify this Court in setting aside his plea of guilty.
So far as the question of sentence is concerned, I consider that there is no prospect that this Court could be persuaded that six years imprisonment was excessive, having regard to the serious criminality involved in the applicant's offending. See in this regard R v Schubring; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 418; CA No 217 and CA No 228 of 2004, 5 November 2004 at [37] to [39] in the judgment of the Chief Justice.
In my opinion. there are insufficient prospects of either of a successful appeal against conviction or of a successful application for leave to appeal against sentence to warrant the grant of an extension of time within which to appeal.
In my opinion, the application should be dismissed.
McPHERSON JA: I agree. Two very serious offences were committed. The bank robbery alone would have merited an effective head sentence in the range of about six years without regard to the additional, and as it happens, prior offence of taking a car from those in possession of it at gun point at midday in a central city street.
The sentence that was imposed was greatly mitigated by his Honour's making a recommendation for parole after only 18 months.
I would add in this regard that although it is right to say that the applicant gave himself up to police in New South Wales after some little interval and that that was a matter which his Honour was right to take into account, nevertheless in all the circumstances, I would think that the prospects of the applicant succeeding on an application for leave to appeal against sentence are very very slight indeed.
Apart from that, this is an application for extension of time after a lengthy period going from July 2004 until April 2005 and to my mind no sufficient explanation has been given as to why the applicant delayed so long or at all before lodging an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
For these reasons I agree with what Justice Keane has said.
DUTNEY J: I agree that the application should be dismissed for the reasons expressed by the other members of the Court.
McPHERSON JA: The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction or to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.