Lashbrook v Walker

[2003] QCA 174

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
HOLMES J
McMURDO J

CA No 406 of 2002

MATTHEW DOUGLAS LASHBROOK

TRACEY LEE WALKER
aka TAMMY NYREE WALKER Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/04/2003

ORDER

MR P G HUYGENS (instructed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against the conviction and order made against her in the Magistrates Court, which was confirmed in the District Court, has not appeared when called. Mr Huygens asks for the application to be dismissed. I think that is the proper course. I would order that the application for leave to appeal in this matter be dismissed.

HOLMES J: I agree.

McMURDO J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: That will be the order of the Court.

‑‑‑‑‑

The case of Lashbrook v Walker involved an appeal by Matthew Douglas Lashbrook against his conviction and sentence, which had been confirmed by the District Court following a conviction in the Magistrates Court. The respondent, Tracey Lee Walker (also known as Tammy Nyree Walker), did not appear for the appeal, leading to the application for leave to appeal being dismissed. The appeal was heard by McPherson JA, Holmes J, and McMurdo J in the Court of Appeal in Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should proceed given the absence of the respondent. The court had to consider the procedural implications of the respondent's non-appearance and determine the appropriate course of action under the circumstances. The court also needed to assess the merits of the application for leave to appeal, particularly in light of the respondent's failure to participate in the proceedings.

The court found that the respondent's absence without notice or explanation warranted the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal. McPherson JA, who delivered the judgment, concluded that the application should be dismissed, a decision concurred with by Holmes J and McMurdo J. The reasoning behind the decision was that the respondent had not appeared despite being called to do so, and there were no compelling reasons presented for her absence. The court considered the procedural fairness to the applicant and the respondent's responsibility to participate in the appeal process.

The final order of the Court of Appeal was that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the earlier convictions and orders made in the Magistrates Court and confirmed by the District Court remained in place.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established