1. Extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence imposed in the Sydney District Court on 6 October 2006 refused. 2. Leave to appeal against sentence imposed in the Sydney District Court on 18 December 2008 refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - stealing from the person - suspended sentence of imprisonment and bond in 2006 - applicant breaches bond by commission of further offences - suspended sentence of imprisonment commences in 2008 - applicant seeks extension of time for leave to appeal against 2006 sentence - relevant factors on application for extension of time - merits of application considered - extension of time refused - leave to appeal against 2008 sentence refused
Lesley Phillis Edwards (Applicant) Regina (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2006/15615
COUNSEL:
Ms SF Beckett (Applicant) Ms NJ Gouda (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/11/0216
LOWER COURTJUDICIAL OFFICER:
His Honour Judge Taylor (6 October 2006); his Honour Judge Hosking SC (18 December 2008)
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
6 October 2006 (his Honour Judge Taylor); 18 December 2008 (his Honour Judge Hosking SC)
2006/15615
ALLSOP P KIRBY J JOHNSON J
12 August 2009
Lesley Phillis Edwards v Regina
Judgment
1 ALLSOP P: I agree with Johnson J.
2 KIRBY J: I agree with Johnson J.
: By application filed on 19 May 2009, the Applicant, Lesley Phillis Edwards, seeks…
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.
Continue reading Edwards v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Edwards v R [2009] NSWCCA 199
Case
[2009] NSWCCA 199
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Edwards v R, the applicant, a defendant in criminal proceedings, sought to appeal against two separate sentences imposed by the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. The first sentence was a suspended sentence of imprisonment and bond, handed down in 2006, and the second was a sentence of imprisonment imposed in 2008 after the applicant breached the conditions of the bond by committing further offences. The applicant's primary objective was to secure an extension of time to appeal against the 2006 sentence, arguing that the delay in lodging the application was due to the complexity of the issues and the time taken to prepare the application.
The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant's application for an extension of time was justified, considering the factors relevant to such applications. Additionally, the court had to decide whether leave to appeal against the 2008 sentence should be granted, focusing on the merits of the appeal and the arguments presented by the applicant. The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay in lodging the application, the merits of the appeal, and the potential impact on the administration of justice.
Upon examination of the application for an extension of time, the court found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension. The court concluded that the delay was not justified, and the applicant's application for an extension of time was refused. Furthermore, the court considered the merits of the appeal against the 2008 sentence and found that the arguments presented by the applicant did not establish a sufficient ground for leave to appeal. Consequently, the applicant's request for leave to appeal against the 2008 sentence was also denied.
In summary, the court refused the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal against the 2006 sentence and denied leave to appeal against the 2008 sentence. The court's decision was based on the lack of justification for the delay in lodging the application and the absence of sufficient grounds for leave to appeal.