R v Madden - [2005] QCA 439

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Madden [2005] QCA 439

PARTIES:

R
v
MADDEN, Philip Martin
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 210 of 2005
DC No 114 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

28 November 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2005

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where applicant convicted by a jury of doing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to six years imprisonment – where applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence – where applicant claimed the reason for delay was late notification to him of what was required for an appeal – whether an appeal against conviction or sentence would have any prospect of success – whether the application for extension of time should be granted

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant was, on the 10th of June 2005, convicted by a jury of the offence of doing grievous bodily harm and he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. He committed that offence during the operational period of a suspended six month term imposed on the 22nd of March 2004. The sentencing Judge activated that six months' sentence but ordered that it be served concurrently with the six-year term.

The applicant filed an application for extension of time within which to appeal on the 18th of August 2005. That application contained no explanation for the delay. The applicant has, however, informed us today that the reason was late notification to him of what was required for an appeal.

The ground of the applicant's proposed appeal against conviction application for leave to appeal against sentence is expressed in the form as follows:

"Trial could have been handled better. Sentence was manifestly excessive."

The applicant has informed us this morning that things he asked to be put to witnesses were not put by his counsel but there is no further particularisation of the suggestion that the trial was not to his liking.

In my view, the application for extension of time should be refused because neither the appeal against conviction nor the application for leave to appeal against sentence would have any prospect of success.

The offence was committed outside a nightclub in the early morning. There was no dispute that the complainant, who was intoxicated, was struck with one blow to the head and fell to the ground again striking his head and fracturing his skull. The defence case was that the applicant…

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 Madden

Details

AGLC: R v Madden [2005] QCA 439
Case: [2005] QCA 439
Decision Date: 28 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Madden, the applicant appealed against both his conviction and sentence, having been found guilty by a jury of grievous bodily harm and sentenced to six years imprisonment. The applicant sought an extension of time to lodge his appeal against the conviction and sentence, claiming the delay was due to late notification of what was required for an appeal. The central legal issues before the court were whether an appeal against either the conviction or the sentence would have any prospect of success and whether the application for an extension of time should be granted.

The court considered the applicant's arguments regarding the late notification, but ultimately concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated a compelling reason for the delay in lodging the appeal. The court held that the applicant's claim of late notification did not sufficiently justify the delay and that the application for an extension of time was not in the interests of justice. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's application for an extension of time. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that strict time limits for appeals are necessary to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the appellate process, and that extensions should only be granted in exceptional circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time 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 Madden [2005] QCA 439
PARTIES:	R v MADDEN, Philip Martin (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 210 of 2005 DC No 114 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	28 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 November 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Keane JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time refused
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where applicant convicted by a jury of doing grievous bodily harm and sentenced to six years imprisonment – where applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence – where applicant claimed the reason for delay was late notification to him of what was required for an appeal – whether an appeal against conviction or sentence would have any prospect of success – whether the application for extension of time should be granted
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent