R v Core Summary | CaseChat AU

[1995] QCA 395

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
FRYBERG J
HELMAN J

CA No 222 of 1995

THE QUEEN

CORE, Christopher Gordon Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 01/08/95

ORDER

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for extension of time to appeal against conviction.

The reason why the notice of appeal is out of time is explained in the material. A notice, in fact, went in within time but it did not contain necessary supporting grounds and it was not accepted by the Court's officer when it came to him. The reason why the grounds did not accompany the original notice was, as the material explains, that the applicant himself mistakenly retained that part of the documentation in his possession. The perfected document then went in on 31 May of this year.

The Crown, in view of the circumstances that I have briefly outlined, does not object to an extension of time for bringing the appeal.

The merits that will be involved in the appeal cannot be effectively judged as of today. The point which is sought to be raised is the contention that the verdicts which the jury brought in were inconsistent. They found guilt in some cases and not in others. As I say, the merits in that contention cannot be judged today but the reason for delay is explained and the Crown does not oppose an order for extension of time.

In the circumstances, I would favour ordering that the time for filing the appeal be extended until 31 May 1995, it being accepted before us that that was the day on which the effective notice was, in fact, filed.

FRYBERG J: I agree.

HELMAN J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: There will be an order accordingly extending time to that date.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Queensland Court of Appeal was an application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction, brought by Christopher Gordon Core against The Queen. The appeal was originally out of time due to a procedural error where the notice of appeal did not include the necessary supporting grounds. Although a notice of appeal was submitted within the required time frame, it lacked the essential documentation and was not accepted by the court officer. The corrected notice, which included the necessary grounds, was submitted on 31 May of the current year. The Crown did not object to the extension of time for the appeal, given the circumstances of the case. The applicant sought to argue that the jury's verdicts were inconsistent, as they found guilt in some instances but not in others, but the merits of this contention could not be assessed at that point.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether an extension of time for filing the appeal should be granted, considering the procedural error and the Crown's lack of opposition. The court had to evaluate the reasons for the delay and decide whether the circumstances warranted an extension of time. The court also needed to consider the potential merits of the appeal, specifically the applicant's argument regarding the inconsistency of the jury's verdicts. However, the court noted that the merits of this argument could not be determined at that stage.

The Queensland Court of Appeal granted the application for an extension of time for filing the appeal. The Chief Justice, Macrossan CJ, noted that the reasons for the delay were explained and the Crown did not oppose the extension. Fryberg J and Helman J concurred with the decision. The court ordered that the time for filing the appeal be extended until 31 May 1995, the date on which the corrected notice of appeal was submitted.

R v Core

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established