R v Edwards - [2004] QCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Edwards [2004] QCA 20

PARTIES:

R
v
EDWARDS, Kevin Raymond
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 357 of 2003
DC No 461 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

11 February 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2004

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - TIME FOR APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant convicted of rape, attempted rape and sexual assault with aggravation - where circumstances of the offences were shocking - whether application for extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against sentence should be granted

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
P F Rutledge for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: The applicant was sentenced on 4 April 2003 on one count of burglary to which he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment; one of sexual assault for which he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment, eight of sexual assault with a circumstance of aggravation; on seven of which he was sentenced to seven years and on the last, eight years imprisonment; three counts of rape for which he was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment and one count of attempted rape for which he was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.

He did not file an application for leave to appeal against those sentences within time but sought by an application dated 4 November 2003 an extension of time within which to make such application.

The applicant asserts that his lawyers were incompetent in that they did not lodge an appeal when he asked them to. He has adduced no evidence in support of this assertion which is one not uncommonly made in cases such as this. In my opinion it is unnecessary to consider whether there is any substance in this assertion because of the matters to which I am about to refer.

The plaintiff, who is 33 years of age, already had a bad criminal record. He had been previously convicted of assaults as well as other offences. At the time of the commission of these offences he was on parole in respect of a four year sentence imposed in New South Wales for malicious wounding.

All of the offences the subject of the present sentences occurred in a single episode on 11 December 1999. The circumstances, which I will describe only briefly, are quite shocking.

The appellant broke and entered the dwelling of the complainant, who was then pregnant, at about 3.15 a.m. She was alone in the house and asleep at the time. She awoke to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Edwards

Details

AGLC: R v Edwards [2004] QCA 20
Case: [2004] QCA 20
Decision Date: 11 February 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Edwards, the respondent, a resident of Queensland, was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences. The nature of the offences, which included rape, attempted rape, and sexual assault with aggravation, was described as shocking by the court. The respondent sought to appeal against his sentence, but his application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal was denied. The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time should be granted, considering the circumstances of the offences and the respondent's application.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing the time within which an appeal could be lodged and the circumstances in which an extension of that time could be granted. It was noted that the respondent had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging his application for an extension. The court also considered the seriousness of the offences and the impact they had on the victims. In light of these factors, the court determined that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The court found that the respondent's delay in seeking an extension was not adequately explained and that the seriousness of the offences warranted a strict interpretation of the time limits for appeals.

The court's reasoning was based on a balance between the need to provide justice to the victims and the importance of adhering to legal time limits. The court held that the respondent had not provided sufficient grounds to justify an extension of time. The court also noted that the respondent's delay in seeking an extension was not adequately explained. As a result, the application for an extension of time was refused, and the respondent's appeal against sentence was deemed to be out of time. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the statutory provisions and the circumstances of the case. The final orders were that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Edwards [2004] QCA 20
PARTIES:	R v EDWARDS, Kevin Raymond (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 357 of 2003 DC No 461 of 2001
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	11 February 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	11 February 2004
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Davies JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - TIME FOR APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant convicted of rape, attempted rape and sexual assault with aggravation - where circumstances of the offences were shocking - whether application for extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal against sentence should be granted
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf P F Rutledge for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent