R v Shield
[2006] QCA 255
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 Shield[2006] QCA 255
- Add to List
R v Shield[2006] QCA 255
R v Shield[2006] QCA 255
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | R v Shield [2006] QCA 255 |
PARTIES: | R |
FILE NO/S: | CA No 163 of 1999 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Reopening (criminal) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | Supreme Court at Brisbane |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 14 July 2006 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 14 July 2006 |
JUDGES: | Williams JA, Jerrard JA and Holmes JA |
ORDER: | 1.The 27 days from 2 August 1999 to 30 August 1999 during which the applicant was in custody and treated as a remand prisoner should count as time served under the sentence of life imprisonment, which he was ordered to serve on 20 April 1999 |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS - APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE - where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of murder – the applicant did not elect on a form (provided by Corrective Services) to be treated as a prisoner serving time pending the determination of his appeal – whether 27 days (time spent in custody pending the appeal) can be declared as time already served under the sentence of life imprisonment R v Lowe [2003] QCA 306; CA No 176 of 2003, 21 July 2003, applied |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
WILLIAMS JA: The applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment on 20 April 1999 after being convicted of murder. In May of that year he sought leave to appeal against his conviction. That appeal was subsequently dismissed on 9 November 1999. At about the time the notice of appeal was lodged the applicant signed a form produced to him by Corrective Services but he did not elect to be treated as a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment pending the determination of the appeal. The effect of the law in force at that time was that in the absence of a direction by this Court the time spent in custody awaiting determination of the appeal could not be counted as part of the applicant's term of imprisonment. Some 27 days after signing that form the applicant became aware of the situation in which he was placed, and he then signed another form ensuring that time in custody pending determination of the appeal would be taken into account as part of his sentence. But as a matter of law the 27 days between signing the respective forms could not be taken into account without an order of this Court.
When the appeal was dismissed on 9 November 1999 no order was made with respect to those 27 days.
The applicant has now, by an application, sought the reopening of his sentence so that an order can be made directing that the 27 days in question be taken into account as time served pursuant to the sentence of life imprisonment. The present case is virtually identical with that considered by this Court in R v Lowe [2003] QCA 306 where an order was made declaring that the relevant time spent in custody should count as time served under the sentence. There is no reason why this Court should not follow that and make an order in the applicant's favour. The Crown does not oppose the application.
The Court therefore orders that the 27 days from 2 August 1999 to 30 August 1999 during which the applicant was in custody and treated as a remand prisoner should count as time served under the sentence of life imprisonment which he was ordered to serve on 20 April 1999.
JERRARD JA: I agree with that being the order of the Court.
HOLMES J: I agree also.
WILLIAMS JA: The order of the Court is as I indicated. So that means that 27 days will now be taken into account, Mr Shields.
APPLICANT: Thank you.