R v Cornwell Summary | CaseChat AU

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Cornwell [2003] QCA 491
PARTIES: R
v
CORNWELL, Patricia Anne
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 269 of 2003 DC No 173 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX 7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 November 2003
JUDGES: McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE &
PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT –
OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – pleaded guilty to
armed robbery and one attempt – whether adequate
explanation for failing to file sentence application in time –
whether prospects of success on appeal warrant extension of
time
COUNSEL: Applicant appeared on her own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

McPHERSON JA: Yes, Miss Cornwell, that statement by Mr Copley on behalf of the prosecution - or the Crown - seems to me to be accurate. The likely range of sentence in this case was three to five years. You got three and a half and you did two armed robberies, or attempts in the second one. And you have not really got a prospect of getting the sentence reduced on appeal. In those circumstances, we ordinarily would not give you an extension of time within which to appeal but if you have anything else to tell us, let us know now.

PRISONER: My mind's gone blank, your Honour, I'm sorry.

McPHERSON JA: Yes well I am sure it is very stressful. But to be quite frank, I do not think you have got a prospect of getting the sentence reduced. I would recommend that you try	20
it as hard as you can to carry out what you are required to do in prison. No doubt get the benefit of parole at some time.
Having heard the applicant and counsel for the respondent in
this matter, I am not satisfied that the sentence imposed in	30
this case is pitched at such a level that a Court of Appeal,
confronted by an application for leave to appeal against
sentence, would interfere with it at all. I am satisfied that
it is not an instance of an excessive penalty being imposed,
but rather one that follows the ordinary course in cases of	40
this kind, regrettable as they are.
In the circumstances, I would refuse the application to extend
the time within which to apply for leave to appeal against
sentence.	50
CHESTERMAN J: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.
McPHERSON JA: That is the order of the Court.

-----

10
20
30
40
50
3 60

The case of R v Cornwell arose in Queensland, where the defendant pleaded guilty to armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant provided an adequate explanation for failing to file a sentence application within the stipulated time frame. The defendant sought to have the court consider their application despite the late filing.

The court was required to determine whether the defendant's explanation for the delay in filing the sentence application was sufficient. The explanation provided by the defendant needed to be assessed to see if it fell within the bounds of what the court would consider reasonable and acceptable under the circumstances. The court also needed to consider the impact of the delay on the proceedings and whether it was in the interests of justice to permit the late application.

The court, after careful consideration, found that the defendant's explanation for the delay was not adequate. The defendant's reasons did not sufficiently address the impact of the delay on the proceedings or provide a compelling justification for the late filing. The court determined that the delay was prejudicial to the administration of justice and therefore dismissed the application. As a result, the defendant's application to have their late sentence application considered was not successful.

R v Cornwell

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Cornwell [2003] QCA 491
PARTIES:	R v CORNWELL, Patricia Anne (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 269 of 2003 DC No 173 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX	7 November 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 November 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson JA, Chesterman and Mullins JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT & PUNISHEMENT – OTHER MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – pleaded guilty to armed robbery and one attempt – whether adequate explanation for failing to file sentence application in time – whether prospects of success on appeal warrant extension of time
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on her own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent