R v Had

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v HAD [2006] QCA 314

PARTIES:

R
v
HAD

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 172 of 2006
DC No 131 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence and Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

25 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2005

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Wilson and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence is allowed.

2. Extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction is allowed.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN GRANTED – where the applicant sought to appeal against two convictions on two counts of rape and also the sentence imposed for those offences – where the applicant does not seek to appeal against his convictions on a number of other offences or seek leave to appeal against the other sentences imposed – where there was a misunderstanding between the applicant and his solicitor about lodging an appeal – where the delay was not long and was not opposed by the respondent.

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copely for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

ATKINSON J: The appellant seeks leave to extend time in which to lodge an appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The explanation for the delay appears to have been a misunderstanding between the applicant and his solicitor about lodging an appeal. The delay in filing the notice was not long and the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, does not oppose an extension of time being granted.

The applicant seeks to appeal against two convictions on two counts of rape and also against the sentence of 13 years' imprisonment imposed for those offences. He asserts that the verdicts are unreasonable and the sentences are manifestly excessive.

He does not seek to appeal against his convictions on a number of other offences or seek leave to appeal against the other sentences imposed.

In the circumstances, I would allow the applicant an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence, and allow him an extension time for leave to appeal against conviction.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree.

WILSON J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The time for appealing against conviction and applying for leave to appeal against sentence is extended to 21 June 2006, which is the day after you put the material in.

-----

In the matter of R v Had, the applicant sought to appeal against two convictions for rape and the sentence imposed for those offences. The case was heard in a relevant Australian court. The applicant did not seek to challenge his convictions on other offences nor did he seek leave to appeal the sentences imposed for those other offences. The primary issue before the court was whether the delay in lodging the appeal was sufficiently justified to warrant an extension of the time limit for appeal.

The court examined the circumstances leading to the delay, finding that there was a misunderstanding between the applicant and his solicitor regarding the lodging of the appeal. This misunderstanding was not the applicant's fault and the delay was not substantial. Moreover, the respondent did not oppose the extension of time. Given these factors, the court found that the delay was justifiable and granted the extension of time for the appeal against both the convictions and the sentence.

Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the applicant's request for an extension of time. This decision allowed the applicant to proceed with his appeal against the convictions and the sentence imposed for the rape offences. The court's decision was based on the reasonable misunderstanding between the applicant and his solicitor, the relatively short duration of the delay, and the lack of opposition from the respondent.

The final orders of the court were to allow an extension of time for leave to appeal against both the sentence and the convictions. This ruling permits the applicant to advance with his appeal against the specified convictions and sentence.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v HAD [2006] QCA 314
PARTIES:	R v HAD (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 172 of 2006 DC No 131 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence and Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	25 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 August 2005
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Wilson and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence is allowed. 2. Extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction is allowed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN GRANTED – where the applicant sought to appeal against two convictions on two counts of rape and also the sentence imposed for those offences – where the applicant does not seek to appeal against his convictions on a number of other offences or seek leave to appeal against the other sentences imposed – where there was a misunderstanding between the applicant and his solicitor about lodging an appeal – where the delay was not long and was not opposed by the respondent.
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copely for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions Queensland for the respondent