Dennis Michael Nona v The Queen (No 2) - [2014] ACTCA 48

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:	Dennis Michael Nona v The Queen (No 2)
Citation:	[2014] ACTCA 48
Hearing Date(s):	18 June 2014
DecisionDate:	20 June 2014
Before:	Refshauge J
Decision:	1. Under r 6 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), so much of the operation of subdiv 5.4.7.2 of those Rules is dispensed with as would prevent the Court hearing and determining the application for an extension of time by Dennis Michael Nona. 2. So far as is necessary, the time within which Dennis Michael Nona may appeal against the convictions following the verdicts of the jury given on 5 July 2013 is extended to 5 March 2014.
Category:	Principal Judgment
Catchwords:	APPEAL – In General and Right of Appeal – Appeal against conviction – Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction – Reasonable chance of success on appeal – Respondent not misled by Notice of Appeal – No objection raised to appeal for some time – Extension of time allowed.
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37J(1)(b) Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), rr 6, 5000, 5405, 5472, 5473, subdiv 5.4.7.2
Cases Cited:	Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 Cookson v The Queen (1989) 45 A Crim R 121 Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118 Jopar v The Queen (2013) 275 FLR 454 M v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487 Merrilees v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 10 Mulcahy v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 3 Nona v The Queen [2014] ACTCA 15 R v Brown [1963] SASR 190 R v Marsh (1935) 25 Cr App R 49 The Queen v Meyboom (2012) 256 FLR 450 R v Nona (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Burns J, 25 February 2014) R v O’Keefe [1979] VR 1 R v Zuber (2010) 175 ACTR 1 R v Murray (1987) 11 NSWLR 12
Parties:	Dennis Michael Nona (Appellant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr S Gill (Appellant) Ms M Jones (Respondent)
Solicitors Porters Lawyers (Appellant) ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	ACTCA 8 of 2014
Decision under appeal:	Court/Tribunal: ACT Supreme Court Before: Burns J Date of Decision: 5 July 2013; 25 February 2014 Case Title: R v Dennis Michael Nona Court File Number(s): SCC 447 of 2009; SCC 378 of 2010

Refshauge J:

On 5 July 2013, the applicant, Dennis Michael Nona, was found guilty by a jury of various sexual offences. The details are set out in the remarks on sentence (R v Nona (Unreported, Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, Burns J, 25 February 2014)) and I do not need to repeat them.

On 25 February 2014, Mr Nona was sentenced to a total period of seven years and six months’ imprisonment to commence on 10 August 2012, to take into account pre-sentence custody, and a non-parole period of three years and nine months was set to commence on the same date and end on 9 May 2016.

Mr Nona…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dennis Michael Nona v The Queen (No 2) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] ACTCA 48
Decision Date: 20 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dennis Michael Nona sought an extension of time to appeal against his convictions. The application was heard by Refshauge J of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an extension of time for Mr Nona to lodge his appeal against conviction. This required the Court to consider whether there was a reasonable prospect of success on the substantive appeal and whether the respondent had been misled or prejudiced by any delay.

Refshauge J reasoned that an extension of time should be granted. The Court noted that the respondent had not raised any objection to the appeal for a significant period, suggesting they were not misled by the Notice of Appeal. Furthermore, the Court was satisfied that there was a reasonable chance of success on the appeal itself, which weighed in favour of granting the extension.

The Court ordered that so much of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) as would prevent the hearing and determination of the application for an extension of time be dispensed with. The time within which Mr Nona could appeal against his convictions was extended to 5 March 2014.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Under r 6 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), so much of the operation of subdiv 5.4.7.2 of those Rules is dispensed with as would prevent the Court hearing and determining the application for an extension of time by Dennis Michael Nona.

2. So far as is necessary, the time within which Dennis Michael Nona may appeal against the convictions following the verdicts of the jury given on 5 July 2013 is extended to 5 March 2014.

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.