Corica v Throssell

The matter before the court involved appeals against sentences and convictions by the respondents, Corica and Throssell, stemming from their failure to comply with a direction under section 214(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (WA). The appeals were filed over four years after the sentences were imposed, and the respondents sought leave to appeal against the decisions of a single judge of the Supreme Court who had dismissed their earlier appeals. The primary legal issue was whether the prosecution for the offences was initiated by an authorised person, as required by the Act, and if the late appeals could be entertained by the court.

The court examined the statutory requirements and determined that the prosecution was indeed initiated by an authorised person, thus satisfying the prerequisites for the offences under the Act. The respondents argued that the lateness of their appeals should be excused due to the complexity of the case and the time required to gather evidence. However, the court held that the appeals were significantly out of time, and the statutory time limits for such appeals were jurisdictional, meaning the court lacked the authority to entertain the appeals. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits in criminal appeals and found that the respondents' appeals were barred by the limitations period.

Consequently, the court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal, confirming that the earlier decisions of the single judge were final. The court underscored the necessity of strict compliance with statutory provisions concerning time limits for appeals, particularly in criminal matters. The appeals against sentence and conviction were thus denied, and the respondents' contentions regarding the authorisation of the prosecution and the lateness of the appeals were rejected.