//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2006] QCA 18
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2006-02-09
Murdo P, Pherson JA, Muir J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The applicant has a heart condition which may need treatment in prison; but, in sentencing, her Honour took account of that factor after calling for and receiving a medical opinion on the matter.
In addition, we have not here been favoured with any ready persuasive explanation of why the application for leave to appeal was not instituted for almost four months before this application to extend time was first signed on 1 December 2005.
In all the circumstances I can see no reason why the application to extend time should be granted and I would in fact dismiss it.
R
Barton [2006] QCA 18
It is not clear what is said to be wrong with the decision, other than the complaint that it is "manifestly excessive". We have, however, been referred by counsel for the Commonwealth to decisions in the District Court at Beenleigh in Prosser (unreported, 1999), at Bowen in Mouncey (unreported, 1999), and in this Court in R v Hassarati [2005] QCA 102 and R v Carter [2005] QCA 402. Respectively, they show sentences imposed ranging from two and a half years with a non-parole period of 15 months, three and a half years with a period of 18 months, three and a half years with a period of 15 months, and two and a half years with a non-parole period of 10 months.
One or more of these decisions was referred to in R v Hurst; ex p Cth DPP [2005] QCA 25, in which, I understand, the President said that a prison sentence of nine to 12 months was within the range for offences of this kind. The applicant, on the other hand, cited one or more sentences in the District Court in which either larger amounts of money were taken or lesser sentences were imposed.