R v Davy

[2010] QCA 82

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA
CHESTERMAN JA
ANN LYONS J

CA No 324 of 2009
SC No 779 of 2005

THE QUEEN

RAYMOND PAUL DAVY Appellant

BRISBANE

DATE 12/04/2010

JUDGMENT

FRASER JA: The applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against sentence on the 21st of December 2009. Today the applicant told the Court that he had prepared and given to a prisoner officer a handwritten outline of submissions. The submissions are not with the Court file and nor has a copy been served on the respondent.

In these circumstances it is appropriate to grant the application made by the applicant for an adjournment which is not opposed by the respondent. The application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

In the Queensland Court of Appeal, the case of R v Davy involved the appellant, Raymond Paul Davy, who had filed an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him. The case was heard by Fraser JA, Chesterman JA, and Ann Lyons JA, with the appeal number 324 of 2009 and Supreme Court number 779 of 2005. Davy had been convicted and sentenced by a lower court and was now seeking to challenge the severity or appropriateness of that sentence in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant an adjournment to the appellant to allow him time to properly prepare and submit his case for leave to appeal. The appellant had indicated that he had prepared a handwritten outline of his submissions but had not provided this to the Court or served it on the respondent, the Crown. The Court needed to determine if the circumstances warranted an adjournment and whether such an adjournment would be in the interests of justice.

The Court concluded that it was appropriate to grant the adjournment requested by the appellant. The primary reason for this decision was that the appellant had not yet provided the Court or the respondent with his written submissions. The Court recognised that for the appeal to proceed fairly and effectively, both parties needed to have access to the appellant's submissions in advance. The Court noted that the respondent did not oppose the adjournment, further supporting the decision to grant it. The appeal was thus adjourned to a date to be fixed, giving the appellant additional time to prepare and submit his case.

No specific final orders were made in this instance, as the adjournment was the primary action taken. The Court did not address the merits of the appeal at this stage, reserving that for the rescheduled hearing once the appellant's submissions were available.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established