R v Mundy
[2011] QCA 7
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 Mundy[2011] QCA 7
- Add to List
R v Mundy[2011] QCA 7
R v Mundy[2011] QCA 7
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: | R v Mundy [2011] QCA 7 |
PARTIES: | R |
FILE NO/S: | CA No 280 of 2010 DC No 964 of 2009 |
DIVISION: | Court of Appeal |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Sentence) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | District Court at Ipswich |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 9 February 2011 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 9 February 2011 |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P and Muir and Fraser JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring to the order made |
ORDER: | The application to extend time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and time is extended until 17 November 2010 |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was found guilty of an offence of break, enter and steal – where the theft was planned and sophisticated – where a significant number of guns were stolen and some were used in subsequent criminal activity by others – where the applicant’s role was a lookout and carrier of the weapons – where the applicant applied for an extension of time approximately seven weeks late – where the applicant alleged he was unaware of his right to appeal until two weeks before the application was lodged – where the applicant had previous and subsequent convictions for similar offences – where the respondent conceded it suffered no prejudice and it would be desirable for the Court to have a proper record – whether the application for an extension of time should be granted R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin SC for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
FRASER JA: The applicant was found guilty by a jury of the offence of break, enter and steal. The offence was a very serious one, involving a planned and sophisticated break-in and theft of 55 guns from a sporting shooter supply in Ipswich. The sentencing judge noted that some of the weapons which had been stolen were subsequently used in the course of further criminal activity by others. Her Honour considered that had the applicant been involved in the planning of the offence a sentence of 10 to 12 years would have been appropriate but, taking into account the applicant's less significant role as a lookout and carrier of the weapons, the appropriate sentence was one of eight years imprisonment. The applicant was sentenced to that term of imprisonment and it was ordered that he be considered eligible for parole on 26 August 2014, after he has served four years.
The applicant now applies for an extension of time within which to appeal. He filed his applications for leave to appeal and for an extension of time on 17 November 2010, about seven weeks late. On an application for an extension of time the Court considers whether any good reason has been shown to account for the delay in applying and it considers more broadly whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the necessary extension: see R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667 at 668.
The applicant has set out his explanation for his delay in his application for an extension of time. He contends that he did not become aware that he had a right to appeal until about the last week of October, some two months after he was sentenced. He contends that his solicitor had not advised him about appeals, he was not sent a letter informing him of that right, and he had no knowledge of any limitation period. It was not until two weeks before he filed his application for an extension that he became aware of his right to seek leave to appeal, when he was advised to that effect by fellow inmates. The applicant then contacted Legal Aid and was given advice about applying for an extension of time on 4 November 2010.
That explanation is not verified and it is not particularly persuasive in light of the applicant's apparent familiarity with the justice system. It appears that he has previous and subsequent convictions for property offences and entering premises, and that he has been imprisoned for like offences.
Acknowledging that difficulty, the respondent nevertheless does not oppose the extension of time sought by the applicant. There is no prejudice to the respondent. Although the respondent submits that the circumstances of the offence prima facie justify its length, the sentence is certainly not a light one and it is desirable that the Court have the benefit of a proper record.
In these circumstances I would grant the application for an extension of time. The appropriate order then is that the time for the applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed in the District Court at Ipswich on 26 August 2010 be extended until 17 November 2010.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
MUIR JA: I agree.
...
THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application to extend time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence is granted and time is extended to 17 November 2010.