R v CAP (No 2)

[2014] QCA 323

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v CAP (No 2) [2014] QCA 323

PARTIES:

R
v
CAP
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 182 of 2014
DC No 241 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

5 December 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

5 November 2014

JUDGES:

Muir, Fraser and Morrison JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Refuse the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence – where the application to extend time for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused on 2 October 2014 – where the applicant was ordered to file and serve any affidavit in support of the application for extension of time to appeal against conviction by the 23 October 2014 – where the applicant was charged with 14 counts in 2006 – where the counts included; nine counts of rape, four counts of carnal knowledge against the order of nature; and one count of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst armed – where the applicant pleaded guilty to all 14 charges – where in 2008 the applicant applied for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence – where in 2009 when that application was heard the appeal against conviction was abandoned, except in respect of count 5 which related to carnal knowledge of an animal – where the respondent conceded that count 5 was not made out and the conviction was set aside for that count – where the current application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction is in relation to the remaining 13 charges – where the delay in seeking an appeal is nearly six years – where the applicant had assistance in filing the first application in 2008 – whether there is an adequate explanation for the delay – where the merits of the proposed appeal are considered – whether the material filed is sufficient enough to justify an extension of time to be granted

R v CAP[2009] QCA 174, related
R v CAP [2014] QCA 247, related
R v Lewis (2006) 163 A Crim R 169; [2006] QCA 121, applied
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. MUIR JA:  I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by Morrison JA.

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

1. MORRISON JA:  This is an application for an extension of…