R v FAA - [2011] QCA 83

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v FAA [2011] QCA 83

PARTIES:

R
v
FAA
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 303 of 2010
DC No 96 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 March 2011

JUDGES:

Muir and White JJA and Martin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 on 19 August 2010 – where applicant did not file notice of appeal until 13 December 2010, almost three months after the time limit had expired – where applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against conviction – where it is feasible and appropriate to make some provisional assessment of the strength of the applicant’s appeal – where applicant complains about the conduct of counsel at trial – where applicant alleges that defence counsel failed to adduce particular evidence – where applicant complains about forensic decisions of counsel in pursuing a certain line in cross-examination or when addressing the jury – where applicant does not complain about any matter involving an error of law upon which legal advice might have been required – whether application for extension of time should be granted

Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 671

R v BBQ (2009) 196 A Crim R 173; [2009] QCA 166, considered
R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677, cited
R v G [1997] 1 Qd R 584; [1995] QCA 517, cited
R v NE [2004] 2 Qd R 328; [2003] QCA 574, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied
TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

[1] MUIR JA: I agree that the application should be dismissed for the reasons given by Martin J.

[2] WHITE JA: I have read the reasons for judgment of Martin J and agree with his Honour that the application should be dismissed for those reasons.

[3] MARTIN J: The applicant seeks an extension of time in which to appeal against his conviction. He was convicted by a jury on 19 August 2010 of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16. On 20 August 2010 his Honour Judge Newton sentenced the applicant to 12 months imprisonment on each of two counts and 18 months imprisonment on the third count. The sentences were to be served concurrently and were suspended after…

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 FAA

Details

AGLC: R v FAA [2011] QCA 83
Case: [2011] QCA 83
Decision Date: 29 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v FAA involved the appellant, who had been found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16. The appellant did not file a notice of appeal until 13 December 2010, almost three months after the time limit had expired. The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction, claiming that it was feasible and appropriate to make a provisional assessment of the strength of his appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time should be granted.

The court considered the appellant's complaints about the conduct of counsel at trial, including allegations that defence counsel failed to adduce particular evidence and the forensic decisions of counsel in pursuing a certain line in cross-examination or when addressing the jury. However, the appellant did not complain about any matter involving an error of law upon which legal advice might have been required. The court held that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed, as the appellant's complaints were not sufficient grounds for an extension. The court found that the appellant's complaints related to the conduct of counsel and the strategic decisions made during the trial, rather than any legal errors.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court held that the appellant's complaints did not establish a sufficient ground for an extension of time, as they did not involve any errors of law or legal advice. The court found that the appellant's complaints were more appropriately addressed in a substantive appeal, rather than through an extension of time. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellant remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time is dismissed.

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 FAA [2011] QCA 83
PARTIES:	R v FAA (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 303 of 2010 DC No 96 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	29 April 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 March 2011
JUDGES:	Muir and White JJA and Martin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where applicant found guilty by a jury of three counts of indecent treatment of a child under the age of 16 on 19 August 2010 – where applicant did not file notice of appeal until 13 December 2010, almost three months after the time limit had expired – where applicant seeks extension of time to appeal against conviction – where it is feasible and appropriate to make some provisional assessment of the strength of the applicant’s appeal – where applicant complains about the conduct of counsel at trial – where applicant alleges that defence counsel failed to adduce particular evidence – where applicant complains about forensic decisions of counsel in pursuing a certain line in cross-examination or when addressing the jury – where applicant does not complain about any matter involving an error of law upon which legal advice might have been required – whether application for extension of time should be granted Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld), s 671 R v BBQ (2009) 196 A Crim R 173; [2009] QCA 166, considered R v Birks (1990) 19 NSWLR 677, cited R v G [1997] 1 Qd R 584; [1995] QCA 517, cited R v NE [2004] 2 Qd R 328; [2003] QCA 574, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied TKWJ v The Queen (2002) 212 CLR 124; [2002] HCA 46, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent