R v Appleton - [2017] QCA 125

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Appleton [2017] QCA 125

PARTIES:

R
v
APPLETON, Linda Eileen
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 13 of 2017
SC No 1219 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 14 October 2016

DELIVERED ON:

9 June 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 May 2017

JUDGES:

McMurdo JA and Byrne SJA and Burns 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 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where the applicant pleaded guilty to murder on the fifth day of her trial – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to two counts of deprivation of liberty and one count of interference with a corpse at the commencement of her trial – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years with respect to the count of murder – where the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction for murder – where the application was instituted almost three months after the expiration of the time specified in s 671(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) for the commencement of an appeal against conviction – whether there are good reasons for the delay in filing the notice of appeal – whether it is in the interests of justice to extend time – whether there is merit in the proposed appeal – whether the applicant should be granted leave to vacate her plea of guilty to murder – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred

Criminal Code (Qld), s 671(1)

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, followed
R v Amundsen[2016] QCA 177, cited
R v Phillips[2017] QCA 88, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
R v Wade [2012] 2 Qd R 31; [2011] QCA 289, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
P J McCarthy for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO JA: I agree with Burns J.
BYRNE SJA: I agree with Burns J.
BURNS J: On 14 October 2016 the applicant, Linda Appleton, together with her co-accused, John Harris, pleaded guilty to the murder of Tia Landers on 16 June 2014. It was the fifth day of their trial in the Supreme Court at Brisbane.
A week later, Appleton and Harris were sentenced. The mandatory sentence for murder of life imprisonment was imposed on each and, in Appleton’s case, a non-parole period of 23 years was specified. Lesser periods of imprisonment were imposed with respect to the other counts that appeared on the indictment and to which Appleton and Harris…

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 Appleton

Details

AGLC: R v Appleton [2017] QCA 125
Case: [2017] QCA 125
Decision Date: 9 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, who had pleaded guilty to murder and other related offences, appealed against the conviction for murder, arguing for an extension of time to do so. The appellant, who was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years, sought an extension of time to appeal against the conviction for murder, which was instituted almost three months after the expiration of the statutory time limit for such an appeal. The primary legal issues the court had to decide were whether there were good reasons for the delay in filing the notice of appeal, whether it was in the interests of justice to extend time, whether there was merit in the proposed appeal, and whether the appellant should be granted leave to vacate her plea of guilty to murder. Additionally, the court had to consider whether a miscarriage of justice had occurred.

The court examined the statutory framework provided by s 671(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) and the common law principles regarding the extension of time for appeals. The court noted that the appellant's delay in filing the notice of appeal was substantial, and she provided limited justification for this delay. The court assessed the merits of the proposed appeal, finding that the appellant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success in appealing the conviction for murder. The court also considered the potential impact of allowing the appeal on the finality of judgments and the interests of justice. Ultimately, the court found that there were insufficient grounds to extend the time for appeal and that it was not in the interests of justice to do so. The court also found that there was no miscarriage of justice that warranted vacating the plea of guilty to murder.

The court concluded that the application for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction for murder should be refused. The appellant's substantial delay in filing the notice of appeal, coupled with the lack of a reasonable prospect of success in the appeal and the broader interests of justice, led the court to this decision. Consequently, the court maintained the original sentence and the appellant's plea of guilty to murder.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time 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 Appleton [2017] QCA 125
PARTIES:	R v APPLETON, Linda Eileen (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 13 of 2017 SC No 1219 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction: 14 October 2016
DELIVERED ON:	9 June 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 May 2017
JUDGES:	McMurdo JA and Byrne SJA and Burns 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 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where the applicant pleaded guilty to murder on the fifth day of her trial – where the applicant also pleaded guilty to two counts of deprivation of liberty and one count of interference with a corpse at the commencement of her trial – where the applicant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years with respect to the count of murder – where the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction for murder – where the application was instituted almost three months after the expiration of the time specified in s 671(1) of the Criminal Code (Qld) for the commencement of an appeal against conviction – whether there are good reasons for the delay in filing the notice of appeal – whether it is in the interests of justice to extend time – whether there is merit in the proposed appeal – whether the applicant should be granted leave to vacate her plea of guilty to murder – whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred Criminal Code (Qld), s 671(1) Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, followed R v Amundsen[2016] QCA 177, cited R v Phillips[2017] QCA 88, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Wade [2012] 2 Qd R 31; [2011] QCA 289, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf P J McCarthy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent