R v Dorrick

[2001] QCA 147

[2001] QCA 147

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
WILLIAMS JA
WHITE J

CA No 31 of 2001

THE QUEEN

v.

EMILY JOAN ELISHA DORRICK  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/04/2001

JUDGMENT

THOMAS JA:  I'll ask Justice White to state the reasons of the Court.

WHITE J:  The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against her conviction on 25 August 2000 of the murder of her four year old daughter.  She was jointly charged with her de facto husband, Trevor Chevathen, who was also found guilty of murder.  He has appealed against his conviction within the time allowed.

Both this applicant and Chevathen allegedly contributed to the beating of the child about the head and section 7 issues were very much to the fore at the trial.  The applicant's notices of appeal and for an extension of time were received by the registry on 16 February 2001. 

The applicant instructed her solicitors to lodge an appeal against her conviction well within time but at every step along the way delays occurred in lodging the necessary forms, none of which are referable to the applicant.  Her lawyer has set out the chronology, which it is unnecessary to recount, save to observe that it is to be regretted that understaffing and pressure of work, as he explained, meant that the applicant's interests were not protected.

Grounds of appeal have been formulated by the applicant and leave to seek to add a further ground or grounds has been foreshadowed.  It has been mentioned by Mr Heaton in his written outline and to some extent confirmed, that the present grounds are the same as those for the co-accused, Mr Chevathen, and it would appear that the grounds of appeal, when the matter is argued, would proceed along similar lines.

The crime is, of course, a serious one.  The co-accused has filed his appeal within time and the explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal indicates no fault on the part of the applicant.  It would be inappropriate if, on the same grounds for example, the co-accused were successful, and this applicant was unable to ventilate her appeal.

Accordingly the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence should be granted and the time extended to today, 18 April 2001.

WILLIAMS JA:  I agree.

THOMAS JA:  I agree.  The order of the Court is application to extend time allowed and the time is extended to 18 April 2001.

-----