Legal Research
Cases
R v Cooper

R v Cooper

Case [2003] QCA 130

Appeal

Limitation Periods

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2003] QCA 130

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA

ATKINSON J

CA No 18 of 2003
THE QUEEN
v.

CHERIE COOPER Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 21/03/2003

JUDGMENT
21032003 T09/SJ3 M/T COA47/2003

APPLICANT conducted her own case

MR M J COPLEY (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions

(Queensland)) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: In view of what has been said and the way

the matter has proceeded this morning it is my view that the
application for an extension of time within which to appeal
against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against

sentence should be dismissed.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

ATKINSON J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: That is the order of the Court.

-----

40
50

JUDGMENT

2 60

Details

AGLC: R v Cooper [2003] QCA 130
Case: [2003] QCA 130
Decision Date: 21/03/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cooper was heard in the Court of Appeal of Queensland. The applicant, Cherie Cooper, sought an extension of time to appeal against her conviction and to apply for leave to appeal against her sentence. The matter was conducted by the applicant herself, while Mr. M.J. Copley represented the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland). The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge her appeal against her conviction and sentence.

The Court was required to assess the applicant's grounds for seeking an extension of time and to determine whether the extension should be granted based on the circumstances of the case. The Court considered the applicant's reasons for the delay in lodging the appeal and whether any exceptional circumstances existed that warranted the extension. The Court also examined the impact of the delay on the respondent and the administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the application for an extension of time. The Chief Justice, de Jersey CJ, expressed the view that the application should be dismissed based on the way the matter had proceeded. Both Davies JA and Atkinson J agreed with the Chief Justice's decision. The Court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds for the delay or any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the applicant was not granted an extension of time to appeal against her conviction and sentence.

Orders