[2003] QCA 46
COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
PHILIPPIDES J
CA No 353 of 2002
THE QUEEN
v.
| JANE ANN CHRISTIANSEN | Applicant |
| BRISBANE ..DATE 18/02/2003 | |
| ORDER 18022003 T07/BP17 M/T COA20/2003 |
1
No appearance by the applicant
MR R G MARTIN (instructed by the Director of Public
Prosecution) for the respondent
DAVIES JA: We will strike the appeal out.
10
-----
20
30
40
50
2 60
Details
- AGLC
- R v Christiansen [2003] QCA 46
- Case
- [2003] QCA 46
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Jane Ann Christiansen, was appealing against her conviction and sentence in the District Court. The respondent, The Queen, was represented by Mr. R.G. Martin, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecution. The Court of Appeal, consisting of Davies JA, Williams JA, and Philippides J, heard the appeal on February 18, 2003.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the applicant's appeal was properly before the Court of Appeal. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient arguable ground of appeal as required by the relevant legislation. Additionally, the court considered whether the appeal should be struck out for lack of prosecution by the applicant.
Davies JA, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, found that the applicant had not appeared before the court to prosecute her appeal, and therefore, the appeal was struck out. The court reasoned that the applicant's failure to prosecute the appeal demonstrated a lack of interest or commitment to the outcome, making it inappropriate to proceed with the appeal. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and no further orders were made.
The central legal issue in this case was whether the applicant's appeal was properly before the Court of Appeal. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient arguable ground of appeal as required by the relevant legislation. Additionally, the court considered whether the appeal should be struck out for lack of prosecution by the applicant.
Davies JA, on behalf of the Court of Appeal, found that the applicant had not appeared before the court to prosecute her appeal, and therefore, the appeal was struck out. The court reasoned that the applicant's failure to prosecute the appeal demonstrated a lack of interest or commitment to the outcome, making it inappropriate to proceed with the appeal. As a result, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and no further orders were made.
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.