[2000] QCA 294
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
PINCUS JA
WILLIAMS J
CA No 140 of 2000
THE QUEEN
v.
VASILE COCOUZ Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 25/07/2000
ORDER
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The order of the Court is that the time for making application for leave to appeal against sentence is extended until 25 May 2000, when the notice was in fact received in the Registry.
---
Details
- AGLC
- R v Cocouz [2000] QCA 294
- Case
- [2000] QCA 294
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Vasile Cocouz, sought leave to appeal against his sentence in the Court of Appeal. The applicant had been found guilty of various drug-related offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The case was heard by the Chief Justice, Pincus JA, and Williams JCA. The applicant sought an extension of time to lodge an application for leave to appeal against his sentence.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence was made within the appropriate timeframe and whether an extension of time should be granted. The applicant's initial application for leave to appeal was lodged after the expiration of the statutory period for making such an application. However, the application was received by the Registry after the statutory period had elapsed. The court was required to determine whether the delay in lodging the application was sufficient to warrant an extension of time.
The court found that the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence was indeed lodged after the expiration of the statutory period, but the application was received by the Registry before the time for making the application had fully expired. The court considered the circumstances of the delay and found that the delay was not entirely attributable to the applicant. The court also found that the applicant had acted promptly in lodging the application once he became aware of the need to do so. The court granted the extension of time for the applicant to lodge his application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The extension was set until 25 May 2000, which was the date on which the application was in fact received in the Registry.
The court made an order extending the time for the applicant to lodge his application for leave to appeal against his sentence until 25 May 2000. The extension was granted on the basis that the delay in lodging the application was not entirely attributable to the applicant and that the applicant had acted promptly once he became aware of the need to lodge the application. The court found that the circumstances of the delay warranted an extension of time.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence was made within the appropriate timeframe and whether an extension of time should be granted. The applicant's initial application for leave to appeal was lodged after the expiration of the statutory period for making such an application. However, the application was received by the Registry after the statutory period had elapsed. The court was required to determine whether the delay in lodging the application was sufficient to warrant an extension of time.
The court found that the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence was indeed lodged after the expiration of the statutory period, but the application was received by the Registry before the time for making the application had fully expired. The court considered the circumstances of the delay and found that the delay was not entirely attributable to the applicant. The court also found that the applicant had acted promptly in lodging the application once he became aware of the need to do so. The court granted the extension of time for the applicant to lodge his application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The extension was set until 25 May 2000, which was the date on which the application was in fact received in the Registry.
The court made an order extending the time for the applicant to lodge his application for leave to appeal against his sentence until 25 May 2000. The extension was granted on the basis that the delay in lodging the application was not entirely attributable to the applicant and that the applicant had acted promptly once he became aware of the need to lodge the application. The court found that the circumstances of the delay warranted an extension of time.
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.