HAYLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 33
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2006] WASCA 33 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:11/2005 | 10 NOVEMBER 2005 & 16 FEBRUARY 2006 | |
| Coram: | ROBERTS-SMITH JA | 2/03/06 | |
| 15 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for extension of time granted Application for order dismissing appeal under r 43(2)(g)(ii) dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HAYLEY -v- THE QUEEN [2006] WASCA 33 CORAM : ROBERTS-SMITH JA HEARD : 10 NOVEMBER 2005 & 16 FEBRUARY 2006 DELIVERED : 2 MARCH 2006 FILE NO/S : CACR 11 of 2005 BETWEEN : BELINDA JANE HAYLEY
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MULLER DCJ
File No : IND 14 of 2004
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeal - Appeal as of right on a question of law under s 688 Criminal Code (WA) - Whether leave now required under s 27 Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA) - Effect of "new rules order" under r 4 Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) - Grounds of appeal changed after Criminal Appeals Act came into…
Continue reading Hayley v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Hayley v The Queen [2006] WASCA 33
- Case
- [2006] WASCA 33
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal in this case was brought by Hayley, the appellant, against The Queen, the respondent, in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The nature of the dispute revolves around the criminal law and procedure, specifically regarding an appeal as of right on a question of law. The appellant sought to appeal against a conviction and sentence that had been imposed by a lower court. The appellant contended that there was an error in the application of the law which warranted an appeal.
The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether leave was now required to appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), and if so, whether the appellant had fulfilled the necessary criteria to obtain it. Furthermore, the court had to consider the effect of a "new rules order" under the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), and the implications if the grounds of appeal had changed after the Criminal Appeals Act came into operation. The court also had to determine if leave to appeal was required and if the appellant's application for an extension of time to file their case was valid.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the appeal was brought within the prescribed time frame under the Criminal Appeals Act and that leave was not necessary. The court noted that the change in the grounds of appeal after the Act came into operation did not affect the appellant's right to appeal. Additionally, the court found that the "new rules order" did not impact the appellant's right to appeal. The court granted the application for an extension of time to file the appellant's case and dismissed the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
The court's final orders were that the application for an extension of time was granted and the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was dismissed. The appeal was allowed to proceed on its merits.
The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether leave was now required to appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), and if so, whether the appellant had fulfilled the necessary criteria to obtain it. Furthermore, the court had to consider the effect of a "new rules order" under the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), and the implications if the grounds of appeal had changed after the Criminal Appeals Act came into operation. The court also had to determine if leave to appeal was required and if the appellant's application for an extension of time to file their case was valid.
In its judgment, the court concluded that the appeal was brought within the prescribed time frame under the Criminal Appeals Act and that leave was not necessary. The court noted that the change in the grounds of appeal after the Act came into operation did not affect the appellant's right to appeal. Additionally, the court found that the "new rules order" did not impact the appellant's right to appeal. The court granted the application for an extension of time to file the appellant's case and dismissed the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution.
The court's final orders were that the application for an extension of time was granted and the application to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution was dismissed. The appeal was allowed to proceed on its merits.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for extension of time granted
Application for order dismissing appeal under r 43(2)(g)(ii) dismissed
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.