SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Melton [2001] QCA 343 PARTIES: R
v
MELTON, Kevin John
(appellant/applicant)FILE NO/S: CA No 260 of 2000
DC No 2 of 2000DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Appeal against Conviction - Further Order ORIGINATING
COURT:District Court at Longreach DELIVERED ON: Judgment delivered 22 August 2001
Further Order delivered 14 September 2001DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 14 August 2001 JUDGES: Davies and Thomas JJA, Byrne J
Further Order of the CourtFURTHER Application for indemnity certificate pursuant to Appeal ORDER: Costs Fund Act refused CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - POWERS OF COURT - APPEAL COSTS FUND - Application by appellant for grant of an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 (Qld), s 15(1), s 17 COUNSEL: W J Cuthbert for appellant/applicant
R G Martin for respondentSOLICITORS: Witheriff Nyst (Southport) for appellant/applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent
THE COURT: This is an application by the appellant for the grant of an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 15(1) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973. This Court cannot grant an indemnity certificate to the appellant pursuant to s 15(1); this section operates only in favour of a respondent. Nor would this Court be able to grant an indemnity certificate pursuant to s 17 should such an application be brought as the appellant could not satisfy the requirement contained in s 17(a) and s 17(b).
Accordingly we would refuse this application.
- AGLC
- R v Melton [2001] QCA 343
- Case
- [2001] QCA 343
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues that the court needed to address were the scope and limits of the Appeal Costs Fund Act in relation to granting indemnity certificates. Specifically, the court had to determine whether it could exercise its discretion under the Act to provide an indemnity certificate despite the appellant's inability to pay costs. The court also considered whether there were any procedural requirements or guidelines that needed to be followed in making such a decision.
The court held that it did not have the power to grant an indemnity certificate under the Appeal Costs Fund Act. The reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the legislation, which did not provide the court with the authority to grant such certificates in the circumstances presented. The court emphasised that the Act was intended to assist appellants in limited circumstances, and that the appellant's financial incapacity alone was not sufficient grounds for granting an indemnity certificate. The court concluded that the application for an indemnity certificate was therefore refused.
Orders
Orders of the court
Costs Fund Act 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.