[2003] QCA 296
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
MACKENZIE J
HELMAN J
CA No 63 of 2003
THE QUEEN
v.
| DEBORAH MARIE CASEY | Applicant |
| BRISBANE ..DATE 16/07/2003 | |
| JUDGMENT | |
| 16072003 T01/BP17 M/T COA 136/2003 | |
| MR A J RAFTER (instructed by the Director of Public | 1 |
| Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the Crown | |
| THE CHIEF JUSTICE: We are satisfied that the appellant has | |
| been properly notified of the date for today's hearing, and | |
| there is in the 5th floor precinct of the Court of Appeal, a | 10 |
| notification that the matters are to be dealt with here today. | |
| In all the circumstances, the appellant not having appeared to | |
| prosecute her appeal, the order of the Court is that the | |
| appeal is dismissed. | 20 |
-----
30
40
50
2 JUDGMENT 60
Details
- AGLC
- R v Casey [2003] QCA 296
- Case
- [2003] QCA 296
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Casey was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, presided over by de Jersey CJ, MacKenzie J, and Helman J. The applicant, Deborah Marie Casey, had filed an appeal against a decision made in a lower court, although the specifics of the lower court's decision are not detailed in this summary. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had properly notified of the date for the appeal hearing and if she had appeared to prosecute her appeal.
The Court examined the procedural aspects of the case, focusing on whether the appellant had been duly notified of the hearing date and if she had presented herself to proceed with the appeal. Given the absence of the appellant to prosecute her appeal, the Court was required to determine the appropriate course of action under the circumstances. The Court found that the appellant had not appeared and, therefore, could not proceed with her appeal.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that in the absence of the appellant and with no indication of any procedural missteps that would warrant a different outcome, the appropriate order was to dismiss the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in appellate processes, particularly the necessity for the appellant to appear and actively prosecute their appeal.
The Court examined the procedural aspects of the case, focusing on whether the appellant had been duly notified of the hearing date and if she had presented herself to proceed with the appeal. Given the absence of the appellant to prosecute her appeal, the Court was required to determine the appropriate course of action under the circumstances. The Court found that the appellant had not appeared and, therefore, could not proceed with her appeal.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, stating that in the absence of the appellant and with no indication of any procedural missteps that would warrant a different outcome, the appropriate order was to dismiss the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of procedural compliance in appellate processes, particularly the necessity for the appellant to appear and actively prosecute their appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.