[2002] QCA 343
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
WILLIAMS JA
ATKINSON J
CA No 219 of 2002
THE QUEEN
v.
PETER JAMES McINTOSH Appellant
BRISBANE
..DATE 04/09/2002
ORDER
THE PRESIDENT: In the circumstances, where the explanation for the late filing has been very clearly given, the respondent does not oppose the extension and the late filing was no fault of the applicant, the following order is appropriate:
Leave should be granted to extend the time within which to seek leave to appeal to the 18th of July 2002.
-----
Details
- AGLC
- R v M [2002] QCA 343
- Case
- [2002] QCA 343
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In this case, the appellant, Peter James McIntosh, was convicted in the District Court and sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against that conviction. The appeal was initially due to be filed on 17 June 2002, but it was not filed until 18 July 2002. The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's delay in filing the appeal should be condoned, given the circumstances of the case.
The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay and found that the appellant's explanation for the delay was credible and that there was no fault on the part of the appellant for the late filing. The court noted that the appellant had acted promptly in seeking to file the appeal once the delay had been identified, and that the respondent did not oppose the extension. The court also considered the appellant's previous history of successful appeals and found that this was a factor in favour of granting the extension.
In light of the circumstances, the court granted leave for the appellant to extend the time within which to seek leave to appeal. The court found that the appellant's delay was not due to any fault on his part and that there was no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the extension. The court also noted that the appellant had acted promptly in seeking to file the appeal once the delay had been identified.
The final order of the court was that leave should be granted to extend the time within which to seek leave to appeal to 18 July 2002. The court found that the circumstances of the case warranted the extension and that there was no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the extension. The appellant was therefore granted leave to appeal against his conviction in the District Court.
The court considered the circumstances surrounding the delay and found that the appellant's explanation for the delay was credible and that there was no fault on the part of the appellant for the late filing. The court noted that the appellant had acted promptly in seeking to file the appeal once the delay had been identified, and that the respondent did not oppose the extension. The court also considered the appellant's previous history of successful appeals and found that this was a factor in favour of granting the extension.
In light of the circumstances, the court granted leave for the appellant to extend the time within which to seek leave to appeal. The court found that the appellant's delay was not due to any fault on his part and that there was no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the extension. The court also noted that the appellant had acted promptly in seeking to file the appeal once the delay had been identified.
The final order of the court was that leave should be granted to extend the time within which to seek leave to appeal to 18 July 2002. The court found that the circumstances of the case warranted the extension and that there was no prejudice to the respondent in allowing the extension. The appellant was therefore granted leave to appeal against his conviction in the District Court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.