R v MAK

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v MAK [2005] QCA 57

PARTIES:

R
v
MAK
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 420 of 2004
DC No 390 of 2002

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

8 March 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson and Keane JJA and Douglas J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application to extend of time within which to appeal against conviction dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction refused because applicant had already exercised right of appeal

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C Heaton for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

McPHERSON JA: The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction on each of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape. The offences occurred between September 1992 and February 1999.

The applicant was convicted after a trial on 18 September 2002. Following his conviction the applicant appealed against the conviction. That appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 31st January 2003.

The rule is that once someone has appealed against his conviction, and that appeal has been disposed of by dismissing it, he may not again exercise his right of appeal. His right of appeal is then exhausted by the dismissal of that appeal and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal.

In these circumstances it would be futile to grant an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction because the inevitable outcome of such an extension would be that the appeal in question would be dismissed.

The applicant, who has appeared before us in person on land line, has informed us that his real interest is in putting before the Court the fact that he has been done a wrong. He says it is due to either or all of corruption within the judicial system, the Government or the police.
While this may be of interest to some, it does not confer on us a power to alter the rules which we apply here and which have the authority of the High Court and of this Court.

In the circumstances, the only course which we can take in this matter is to dismiss the application for an extension of time within which to appeal.

KEANE JA: I agree with the order proposed by the learned presiding Judge for the reasons which he has given.

DOUGLAS J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order of the Court is that the application to extend time within which to appeal is dismissed.

-----

In the case of R v MAK, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against their conviction. The dispute involved the statutory framework governing the extension of time for appeals in Queensland, specifically under the Criminal Appeal and Review Act 2004. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant argued that due to exceptional circumstances, the court should grant an extension beyond the statutory period for lodging an appeal.

The legal issues before the court centred on whether the statutory provisions allowed for an extension of time in this case and whether the applicant had genuinely exercised their right to appeal within the prescribed period. The court considered the statutory provisions, the principle of finality in criminal proceedings, and the applicant's conduct in seeking an extension. The court also evaluated whether the applicant had acted promptly and diligently in seeking to appeal against the conviction.

The court found that the statutory provisions did not provide for extensions in such circumstances and that the applicant had already exercised their right to appeal by lodging a Notice of Appeal. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory timelines and the principle of finality in criminal appeals. It concluded that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would warrant an extension of time. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was dismissed.

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 MAK [2005] QCA 57
PARTIES:	R v MAK (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 420 of 2004 DC No 390 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 March 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2005
JUDGES:	McPherson and Keane JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application to extend of time within which to appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction refused because applicant had already exercised right of appeal
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent