Legal Research
Cases
Corbett v Cwlth Director of Public Prosecutions

Corbett v Cwlth Director of Public Prosecutions

Case [2001] QCA 530

Appeal

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2001] QCA 530

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA

Application No 8933 of 2001
Application No 8949 of 2001
Application No 9117 of 2001
Application No 9118 of 2001
Application No 9119 of 2001

ROBERT EDWARD CORBETT
and

ANNE SHIRLEY CORBETT

and

KENNETH EDWIN PARKER

and

RODNEY JAMES MACKAY

and

JOHN ANDREW ALLEN

and

ROBERT MURRAY COOPER

and

BRIAN MICHAEL WOOD Applicants

and

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/11/2001

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: The matters for referral will be adjourned

to a date to be fixed and costs will be reserved.

-----

Details

AGLC: Corbett v Cwlth Director of Public Prosecutions [2001] QCA 530
Case: [2001] QCA 530
Decision Date: 23/11/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal, presided over by McMurdo P, Davies JA, and Williams JA, was presented with an application filed by seven individuals against the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. The applicants sought to appeal against a decision made by the District Court of Queensland. The applicants, including Robert Edward Corbett, Anne Shirley Corbett, Kenneth Edwin Parker, Rodney James Mackay, John Andrew Allen, Robert Murray Cooper, and Brian Michael Wood, aimed to challenge the Director of Public Prosecutions' decision to refuse their application to set aside a conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the applicants had a valid basis to appeal against the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions to not set aside the conviction and sentence, and if the court should grant leave to appeal. The applicants argued that they had a substantial case to be heard on appeal and that the Director's decision was erroneous. The court needed to determine the grounds for appeal and whether the applicants' arguments had merit.

The Court of Appeal found that the applicants' arguments did not establish a substantial case warranting leave to appeal. The applicants had to demonstrate that the Director's decision was unreasonable or based on an error of law. The court concluded that the applicants had not met this burden of proof. The applicants' grounds of appeal were deemed to be without merit, and the court found no reason to grant leave to appeal. The court held that the Director's decision to refuse the applicants' application was correct, and the applicants' appeal was dismissed. The court reserved costs.

Orders