R v AAI - [2009] QCA 253

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v AAI [2009] QCA 253

PARTIES:

R
v
AAI
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 96 of 2009
DC No 70 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

1 September 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 August 2009

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty on ex officio indictment to indecent dealing with a child, rape and possession of child exploitation material – where applicant seeks extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – where application to appeal against conviction and sentence was filed over two years after the time limit under s 671 Criminal Code – whether the application for extension of time should be granted

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 349, s 671

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied
R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G [2004] QCA 78, cited
R v Gadaloff[1999] QCA 286, applied
R v MAN[2005] QCA 413, distinguished
R v NI[2007] QCA 442, considered
R v SAR[2005] QCA 426, considered
R v SAU[2006] QCA 192, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, considered
R v WAG[2002] QCA 304, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

MURDO P:Mc The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence should be refused for the reasons given by White J.

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of White J and with the order her Honour proposes.

WHITE J: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to obtain the leave of the court to appeal from the sentences imposed upon him and leave to withdraw his pleas of guilty.

By s 671(1) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) an applicant for leave to appeal against sentence and/or conviction must give notice of the application within one calendar month of the sentence and/or conviction in the approved manner.

The applicant appears before the court by video link from the corrections facility where he is detained to argue his own case. He pleaded guilty in the District Court at Maroochydore on 26 February 2007 on ex officio indictment containing 50 counts of indecent dealing with a child with circumstances of aggravation, 11 counts of…

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 R v AAI

Details

AGLC: R v AAI [2009] QCA 253
Case: [2009] QCA 253
Decision Date: 1 September 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, AAI, appealed against the decision of the District Court of Queensland, which dismissed his application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant had pleaded guilty to indecent dealing with a child, rape, and possession of child exploitation material. He filed his application to appeal against his conviction and sentence over two years after the expiration of the time limit under section 671 of the Criminal Code. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time should be granted, considering the significant delay in filing the application.

The court considered the general principles that guide the grant or refusal of an extension of time for an appeal. These principles include the need for the applicant to demonstrate a satisfactory explanation for the delay, the extent to which the applicant has suffered prejudice due to the delay, and the extent to which the opponent of the application would suffer injustice if the extension were granted. The court found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, nor had he demonstrated any prejudice that would result from the delay. Furthermore, the court found that the Crown would suffer significant injustice if the extension were granted, as the delay had impacted its ability to adequately prepare a response to the appeal.

Consequently, the court refused the application for an extension of time. The applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence stood. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory time limits for appeals and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v AAI [2009] QCA 253
PARTIES:	R v AAI (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 96 of 2009 DC No 70 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	1 September 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 August 2009
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where the applicant pleaded guilty on ex officio indictment to indecent dealing with a child, rape and possession of child exploitation material – where applicant seeks extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – where application to appeal against conviction and sentence was filed over two years after the time limit under s 671 Criminal Code – whether the application for extension of time should be granted Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 349, s 671 Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied R v Dickeson; ex parte A-G [2004] QCA 78, cited R v Gadaloff[1999] QCA 286, applied R v MAN[2005] QCA 413, distinguished R v NI[2007] QCA 442, considered R v SAR[2005] QCA 426, considered R v SAU[2006] QCA 192, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, considered R v WAG[2002] QCA 304, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent