R v Appoo
[2006] QCA 183
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 Appoo[2006] QCA 183
- Add to List
R v Appoo[2006] QCA 183
R v Appoo[2006] QCA 183
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | R v Appoo [2006] QCA 183 |
PARTIES: | R |
FILE NO/S: | CA No 82 of 2006 SC No 374 of 2002 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 29 May 2006 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 29 May 2006 |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, Williams & Holmes JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made |
ORDER: | Application for the extension of time within which to appeal sentence and conviction is refused |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter and one count of grievous bodily harm – where an indefinite sentence was refused – where the applicant was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment – where the application was 17 months out of time - whether an appeal against conviction or sentence would have any prospect of success – whether the application for extension of time should be granted The following cases were cited: R v Bates; R v Baker [2002] QCA 174; CA No 295 of 2001, CA No 329 of 2001, 17 May 2002 R v MacKenzie [2004] QCA 324; CA No 353 of 1999, 20 October 2000; (2000) 113 A Crim R 534 |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf with L Appoo assisting S G Bain for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf with L Appoo assisting Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: On the 23rd of December, 2004, the applicant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter and a concurrent 10 year term for the offence of doing grievous bodily harm. He had pleaded guilty on the 11th of October, 2004.
The Crown sought the imposition of an indefinite sentence which was eventually refused. Prior to the sentencing, the Mental Health Court had considered the applicant's condition at the time of committing the offences and had determined that the applicant was not then suffering from unsoundness of mind or a state of diminished responsibility.
The offences were committed in relation to a married couple. The applicant killed the husband and did grievous bodily harm to the wife. All of this involved brutal attacks upon them. Support for the sentences imposed by the learned sentencing Judge may be gathered from Bates v. Baker, 2002, Queensland Court of Appeal 174.
On 3rd April, 2006, the applicant filed an application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The application was approximately 17 months out of time. There was no sworn material explaining the lateness of the application.
The grounds set out in the application for extension of time read "Incorrect information from witness", although that was not developed here further. No sworn material has been filed in support of the applications. We did, however, hear today orally from the applicant's father Mr Leo Appoo with the consent of the applicant who felt unable properly to develop the case himself. We also heard briefly from the applicant.
Mr Appoo Senior explained the delay by reference to a series of unsuccessful attempts on his part and his son's part to interest Legal Aid in the case.
In relation to the proposed appeal against conviction, the applicant has not demonstrated that his being convicted on his pleas of guilty was relevantly unfair amounting to a miscarriage of justice, see McKenzie (2000) 113 Australian Criminal Reports 534 at paragraphs 31 and 32.
The staged nature of the proceeding to the point of sentencing, with involvement of the Mental Health Court and deferment of the process to facilitate the application for the indefinite sentence, meant the applicant had a number of opportunities to challenge the Crown case. The comprehensive sentencing remarks suggest that the Crown case was overwhelmingly strong.
Bearing in mind the substantial delay and, in the end, inadequate explanation for it and the plain lack of merit in the proposed appeal and application, the application for extension of time should, in my view, be refused.
WILLIAMS JA: I agree.
HOLMES JA: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.