THE QUEEN v CRAIG PAUL MEYBOOM [2012] ACTCA 2 (31 January 2012)
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – in general and right of appeal – leave to appeal out of time – principles on which leave should be granted – explanation for delay – whether miscarriage of justice – leave refused.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – practice and procedure – when time for appeal begins to run in criminal matters – Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Div 5.4.7 – meaning of conviction.
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – practice and procedure – cross appeal – whether conviction appeal can be cross-appeal against sentence appeal – need for fresh 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 Meyboom
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Meyboom [2012] ACTCA 2
Case
[2012] ACTCA 2
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, R v Meyboom, sought an extension of time to appeal against conviction and to cross-appeal. The matter came before Refshauge J in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory.
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether an extension of time should be granted for an appeal against conviction, and whether a cross-appeal against sentence could be brought within the framework of an appeal against conviction. The Court also considered the meaning of "conviction" for the purposes of when time for appeal begins to run under the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) Div 5.4.7.
Refshauge J refused the application, finding that the applicant had not provided a sufficient explanation for the significant delay in filing the appeal. The Court also determined that a cross-appeal against sentence could not be brought as part of an appeal against conviction, and that a fresh appeal against sentence would be required. The principles for granting leave to appeal out of time, including the need to demonstrate a miscarriage of justice, were applied.
The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction or to cross-appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction or to cross-appeal be dismissed.