CAMERON -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 16
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 16 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | |||
| Case No: | CCA:18/2002 | 7 NOVEMBER 2003 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J MCKECHNIE J WALLWORK AJ | 9/02/04 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for extension of time refused | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | JOHN LEONARD CAMERON THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction Lengthy delay unexplained in part No merit in grounds of appeal No injustice Constitution Offence under Commonwealth law No inconsistency |
Legislation: | Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth) Misuse of Drugs Act (WA) 1981 |
Case References: | Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339 Cameron v The Queen [2000] WASCA 286 Cameron v The Queen [2002] WASCA 81 Narkle v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6108; 2 December 1985 R v Holmes (1988) 93 FLR 405. , R v Mahasay [2002] WASCA 336 R v Pinkstone (2001) 24 WAR 406 R v Pinkstone [2001] WASC 172; (2001) 24 WAR 406 R v Porter (2001) 53 NSWLR 354 R v Porter [2001] NSWCCA 441; (2001) 53 NSWLR 354 Serrette v The Queen [2000] WASCA 405 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : CAMERON -v- THE QUEEN [2004] WASCA 16 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- MCKECHNIE J
WALLWORK AJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction - Lengthy delay unexplained in part - No merit in grounds of appeal - No injustice - Constitution - Offence under Commonwealth law - No inconsistency
Legislation:
Commonwealth Places (Application of Laws) Act 1970 (Cth)
Misuse of Drugs Act (WA) 1981
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for extension of time refused
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Mr R E Cock QC & Ms K L Ellson
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
Cameron v The Queen [2000] WASCA 286
Cameron v The Queen [2002] WASCA 81
Narkle v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 6108; 2 December 1985
R v Holmes (1988) 93 FLR 405
R v Mahasay [2002] WASCA 336
R v Pinkstone (2001) 24 WAR 406
R v Pinkstone [2001] WASC 172; (2001) 24 WAR 406
R v Porter (2001) 53 NSWLR 354
R v Porter [2001] NSWCCA 441; (2001) 53 NSWLR 354
Case(s) also cited:
Serrette v The Queen [2000] WASCA 405
(Page 3)
1 STEYTLER J: I have had the advantage of reading, in draft, the judgment of McKechnie J. I agree with him, for the reasons which he has given, that…
Continue reading Cameron v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cameron v The Queen [2004] WASCA 16
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 16
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, Cameron, sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction for an offence under Commonwealth law. The respondent, The Queen, opposed the application on the basis that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the application and that the grounds of appeal had no merit. The court was required to determine whether the application for an extension of time should be granted.
The court considered whether the delay in lodging the application was satisfactorily explained and whether there was any merit in the grounds of appeal. The court found that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal. The court also considered whether there was any injustice in refusing the application for an extension of time and whether the decision was consistent with the Constitution. The court found that there was no injustice in refusing the application and that the decision was consistent with the Constitution.
The court refused the application for an extension of time. The court found that the delay in lodging the application was not satisfactorily explained and that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal. The court also found that there was no injustice in refusing the application and that the decision was consistent with the Constitution. The applicant's appeal against his conviction was therefore dismissed.
The court considered whether the delay in lodging the application was satisfactorily explained and whether there was any merit in the grounds of appeal. The court found that the delay was not satisfactorily explained and that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal. The court also considered whether there was any injustice in refusing the application for an extension of time and whether the decision was consistent with the Constitution. The court found that there was no injustice in refusing the application and that the decision was consistent with the Constitution.
The court refused the application for an extension of time. The court found that the delay in lodging the application was not satisfactorily explained and that there was no merit in the grounds of appeal. The court also found that there was no injustice in refusing the application and that the decision was consistent with the Constitution. The applicant's appeal against his conviction was therefore dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for extension of time refused
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.