R v Forrester - [2013] QCA 329

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Forrester [2013] QCA 329

PARTIES:

R
v
FORRESTER, Shannon Wayne
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 118 of 2013
SC No 356 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 November 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 October 2013

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and McMeekin J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction and against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted on 19 December 2011 on four counts of supplying dangerous drugs on four different dates, one count of producing dangerous drugs in excess of two grams and one count of possessing dangerous drugs in excess of two grams – where he was sentenced on the same day to concurrent sentences of five years imprisonment for each of the production and possession offences and two years imprisonment for each of the supply offences – where the applicant made an application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence almost 16 months after the appeal period expired – where his application for an extension of time was not supplemented by any affidavit made by him swearing to the circumstances which had resulted in his failing to appeal within time – where the applicant attributed his failure to appeal and to apply for leave to appeal in a timely fashion to his not knowing that there was a time limit and to his being unable to contact his legal advisers during the Christmas/New Year break immediately following his imprisonment – where the applicant failed to satisfy the Court that he has any arguable ground of appeal against conviction or sentence which has any reasonable prospect of success – whether an extension of time should be granted

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671B

R v DAQ[2008] QCA 75, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with Gotterson JA’s reasons for refusing this application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and to apply for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant has not put before this Court the further evidence he seeks to lead in his proposed appeals. In any case, even if he can produce this evidence, it does not appear to be such as would lead this Court to determine that, had it been before the jury, there was a significant or real possibility that the jury, acting reasonably, would acquit.

I agree with the order proposed by Gotterson JA.

GOTTERSON JA: After a…

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 Forrester

Details

AGLC: R v Forrester [2013] QCA 329
Case: [2013] QCA 329
Decision Date: 1 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Forrester, the applicant appealed against his conviction and sentence, seeking an extension of time to appeal. The applicant had been convicted on 19 December 2011 on multiple counts of supplying, producing, and possessing dangerous drugs. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, with concurrent sentences for the production and possession offences, and shorter sentences for the supply offences. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal almost 16 months after the appeal period had expired. He attributed his delay to not knowing about the time limit for appeals and being unable to contact his legal advisers during the Christmas/New Year break following his imprisonment. The applicant did not provide an affidavit to support his reasons for the delay.

The central legal issue was whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The court considered whether the applicant had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay and whether he had an arguable ground of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success. The applicant's reasons for the delay, such as being unaware of the time limit and difficulty in contacting legal advisers, were not deemed sufficient. Additionally, the applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable ground of appeal with a reasonable chance of success.

The Court found that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for an extension of time. The explanation provided for the delay was not considered adequate, and there was no indication that the applicant had any arguable ground of appeal that had a reasonable prospect of success. Therefore, the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.

The Court's order was that the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and against sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction and 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 Forrester [2013] QCA 329
PARTIES:	R v FORRESTER, Shannon Wayne (applicant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 118 of 2013 SC No 356 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	1 November 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 October 2013
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P and Gotterson JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction and against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted on 19 December 2011 on four counts of supplying dangerous drugs on four different dates, one count of producing dangerous drugs in excess of two grams and one count of possessing dangerous drugs in excess of two grams – where he was sentenced on the same day to concurrent sentences of five years imprisonment for each of the production and possession offences and two years imprisonment for each of the supply offences – where the applicant made an application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence almost 16 months after the appeal period expired – where his application for an extension of time was not supplemented by any affidavit made by him swearing to the circumstances which had resulted in his failing to appeal within time – where the applicant attributed his failure to appeal and to apply for leave to appeal in a timely fashion to his not knowing that there was a time limit and to his being unable to contact his legal advisers during the Christmas/New Year break immediately following his imprisonment – where the applicant failed to satisfy the Court that he has any arguable ground of appeal against conviction or sentence which has any reasonable prospect of success – whether an extension of time should be granted Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 671B R v DAQ[2008] QCA 75, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent