R v. Hansen - [2008] QCA 351

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Hansen [2008] QCA 351
PARTIES:	R v HANSEN, Edward Charles (applicant)
FILE NO:	CA No 211 of 2008 DC No 2104 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 October 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Fraser JA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDERS:	Application dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where applicant seeks extension of time in which to appeal against conviction – where application is made following a significant delay – where no reasonable excuse is offered for the delay – whether there is a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice which can be corrected only on appeal – whether the application for extension of time in which to appeal against conviction should be granted
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 70(3)
R v Basacar [2008] QCA 285, followed R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75, followed R v Marriner [2007] 1 Qd R 179; [2006] QCA 32, followed Wu v The Queen (1999) 199 CLR 99; [1999] HCA 52, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McMURDO P: The application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction should be refused for the reasons given by McMeekin J.
FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of McMeekin J. I agree with the order proposed by his Honour, and with his reasons for the order.
McMEEKIN J: The applicant was tried before his Honour Judge White and a jury in the District Court and on 12 August 2005 convicted on an indictment charging one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of rape and 15 counts of unlawful carnal knowledge of a child under the age of 16 years. For these offences he was sentenced by Judge White to imprisonment for 12 years, in respect of the count of maintaining a sexual relationship and convicted but not further punished on the remaining counts.
The applicant appealed against his conviction on all counts and sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The notice of appeal was filed on 7 September 2005. The applicant filed a notice of abandonment of appeal which notice purports to have been signed by the applicant on 7 June 2006 but which is shown as having been filed in the Registry on 7 February 2006.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal against sentence on 6 March 2006.
On 12 August 2008…

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. Hansen

Details

AGLC: R v Hansen [2008] QCA 351
Case: [2008] QCA 351
Decision Date: 5 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an appeal by the defendant, Hansen, against his conviction. Hansen sought an extension of time in which to lodge his appeal against the conviction. The application was made after a significant delay and Hansen provided no reasonable excuse for the delay. The court had to determine whether Hansen had demonstrated a compelling case of serious injustice that could only be corrected by allowing the appeal. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the application for an extension of time should be granted.

The central legal issues were whether Hansen had shown a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice which warranted the extension of time, and if the application should be granted under the general principles governing the extension of time for appeals. The court considered the principles of general law and statutory provisions relevant to the grant or refusal of an extension of time. These principles included the necessity for a reasonable excuse for the delay and the demonstration of a serious injustice that could only be corrected on appeal.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay and found that Hansen had not provided any reasonable excuse for the significant delay in making the application. The court also assessed whether Hansen had demonstrated a serious injustice that could only be corrected on appeal. After considering the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that Hansen had not made a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time in which to appeal against the conviction was dismissed. The court found no grounds to grant Hansen's application and thus, his appeal against the conviction was not permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.