R v Binney - [2025] QCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Binney [2025] QCA 46
PARTIES: R v BINNEY, Jason William
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 290 of 2022
SC No 44 of 2018
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 5
COURT: October 2018 (Burns J)
DELIVERED ON: 11 April 2025
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 1 April 2025
JUDGES: Mullins P and Flanagan JA and Cooper J
ORDER: The application for an extension of time within which to
appeal against conviction is refused.
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of murder, one count of burglary and stealing and one count of wilful damage – where the applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the count of murder – where no order as to parole eligibility was made – where the applicant appeals his conviction on the count of murder and seeks an extension of time within which to appeal – where the applicant’s appeal was filed out of time – where the applicant contends that he was not aware of nor advised of his right to appeal against conviction until February 2022 – where the applicant seeks to have his plea of guilty for the count of murder set aside – whether there is an adequate explanation for the delay in filing the notice of appeal – whether, regardless of any unexplained delay, refusing the application would result in a miscarriage of justice – whether an extension of time should be granted
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where the applicant seeks leave to adduce evidence addressing delay for the purpose of the application for an extension of time – where the evidence sought to be adduced contains an asserted true version of events – whether the asserted true version of events gives rise to a possible defence under ss 271 or 272 of the Criminal Code
Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 181(2)(c)
Criminal Code (Qld), s 7(1)(a), s 8, s 271, s 272, s 671(1)
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 92(a)
Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41,
cited
R v Carkeet [2009] 1 Qd R 190; [2008] QCA 143, cited
R v GV [2006] QCA 394, cited
R v Horne [2011] QCA 282, cited

COUNSEL: R B Carroll for the applicant (pro bono)
M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono)
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MULLINS P: I agree with Flanagan JA.
FLANAGAN JA: On 5 October 2018, before Burns J, in the Supreme Court of
Queensland at Toowoomba, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of murder, one count of burglary and stealing and one count of wilful damage.
For the…

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 Binney

Details

AGLC: R v Binney [2025] QCA 46
Case: [2025] QCA 46
Decision Date: 11 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Binney was heard by the court, involving the respondent, Binney, who sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction. The nature of the dispute was centred around Binney's request for additional time beyond the statutory period to challenge his conviction, asserting grounds that might potentially justify such an extension. The court was tasked with evaluating the merits of Binney's application and deciding whether the statutory constraints on appealing a conviction should be relaxed in his case.

The legal issues that the court had to address were primarily concerned with the statutory limitations on the appeal process and the circumstances under which an extension of time might be granted. The court needed to assess whether the reasons provided by Binney were sufficiently compelling to warrant an exception to the usual time frames for lodging an appeal against conviction. This involved a consideration of the principles governing the extension of time in criminal appeals and whether Binney's situation met the criteria that might justify a departure from the established rules.

In delivering its decision, the court carefully examined the statutory framework and the precedents that guide extensions of time for appealing a conviction. It found that while Binney had presented reasons for the delay, these did not meet the stringent requirements necessary to justify an extension. The court concluded that the statutory time limit for appealing a conviction was a strict one, and the circumstances presented by Binney did not sufficiently warrant an exception. As a result, the application for an extension of time was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time within which to

appeal against conviction 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 Binney [2025] QCA 46
PARTIES:	R v BINNEY, Jason William
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 290 of 2022 SC No 44 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING	Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction: 5
COURT:	October 2018 (Burns J)
DELIVERED ON:	11 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 April 2025
JUDGES:	Mullins P and Flanagan JA and Cooper J
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is refused.

COUNSEL:	R B Carroll for the applicant (pro bono) M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant (pro bono) Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent