[2005] QCA 325
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
JERRARD JA
FRYBERG J
CA No 128 of 2005
| CALEB ALEXANDER MAYBIR | (Appellant)/Applicant |
| and | |
| MERVYN KENNETH BONE | (Respondent)/Respondent |
| BRISBANE ..DATE 01/09/2005 | |
| ORDER | |
| N | o appearance by or on behalf of applicant |
MS S G BAIN (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions
| ( | Queensland)) for the respondent |
THE PRESIDENT: This matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed.
-----
Details
- AGLC
- Maybir v Bone [2005] QCA 325
- Case
- [2005] QCA 325
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Caleb Alexander Maybir appeals against the decision of the District Court to dismiss his application for leave to appeal against his conviction for armed robbery. The Court of Appeal comprises McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Fryberg J. The respondent, Mervyn Kenneth Bone, is represented by Ms SG Bain, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland).
The legal issues the Court of Appeal was required to decide were whether the District Court erred in law in dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for armed robbery, and whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave to appeal. The Court considered the grounds of appeal, which included the argument that the District Court had erred in finding that the appellant had not demonstrated that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court had not erred in dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the appellant had not made out a case for a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court held that the District Court had correctly applied the law and that there was no error in its decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.
The legal issues the Court of Appeal was required to decide were whether the District Court erred in law in dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction for armed robbery, and whether the Court of Appeal should grant leave to appeal. The Court considered the grounds of appeal, which included the argument that the District Court had erred in finding that the appellant had not demonstrated that there was a substantial miscarriage of justice.
The Court of Appeal held that the District Court had not erred in dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal. The Court found that the appellant had not made out a case for a substantial miscarriage of justice and that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction. The Court held that the District Court had correctly applied the law and that there was no error in its decision. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and made no order for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.