R v Anderson Summary | CaseChat AU

99.31

COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA

WILSON J

CA No 440 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

RODNEY GEORGE ANDERSON

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 23/02/99
230299 D.1 T18/JLM5 M/T COA27/99
WILSON J: On 26 September 1997, the applicant was convicted
of murder and attempted arson. He was subsequently sentenced
to life-----
APPLICANT: Am I allowed to have my say first?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you can reply on matters of law. I'm sorry. I'll interrupt Justice Wilson.

...

WILSON J: Continuing the reasons. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and to nine years' imprisonment for the attempted arson, the sentences to be served concurrently. He appealed against the convictions, and on 17 April 1998 the appeal was dismissed.

The present application is for an extension of time in which to institute a fresh appeal. Leave is sought on the ground that all the paperwork from the previous appeal was withheld until 2 November 1998.

Be that as it may, this Court simply does not have
jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal after the dismissal
of the first appeal on the merits. Once a prisoner has
exercised his right of appeal in Section 668D of the Criminal
Code, he has only two avenues open to him: one, to apply to
the High Court for special leave to appeal to that Court, or,
two, to apply to the Governor for a pardon under Section 672A.
230299 D.1 T18/JLM5 M/T COA27/99
In the circumstances, there would be no point in extending
time and the application should be dismissed.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: I also agree.

...

THE PRESIDENT: The order is that the application is dismissed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Rodney George Anderson, sought an extension of time to institute a fresh appeal against his convictions for murder and attempted arson. The applicant's original appeal was dismissed on 17 April 1998. The current application for an extension of time was based on the contention that all the paperwork from the previous appeal was not made available until 2 November 1998. The key legal issue before the court was whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal on the merits.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of McMurdo P, McPherson JA, and Wilson J, held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal. Once a prisoner had exercised their right of appeal under Section 668D of the Criminal Code, they had only two options: to apply to the High Court for special leave to appeal, or to apply to the Governor for a pardon under Section 672A. The Court concluded that there was no point in extending the time for the applicant to institute a fresh appeal, and thus the application should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time to institute a fresh appeal. The unanimous decision of McMurdo P, McPherson JA, and Wilson J was that the application should be dismissed as the Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal after the dismissal of the first appeal on the merits.

R v Anderson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established