R v NX - [2018] QCA 325

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v NX [2018] QCA 325

PARTIES:

R
v
NX
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 295 of 2017
DC No 40 of 2015

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 21 July 2016 (Smith DCJA)

DELIVERED ON:

23 November 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 November 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Mullins J

ORDER:

Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted after trial of four counts of torture, one count of rape and four counts of common assault committed against her daughters – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on one count of torture and five years’ imprisonment for each of the other counts of torture – where serious violent offence declarations made in respect of those counts – where the applicant was convicted and not further punished in respect of the other counts – where the applicant applies for an extension of time in which to appeal against the convictions and apply for leave to appeal against the sentences – where the applicant represented herself – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time

R v BH; ex parte Attorney-General (2000) 110 A Crim R 499; [2000] QCA 110, considered
R v HAC[2006] QCA 460, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, followed

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins J and the order proposed by her Honour.
MORRISON JA: I agree with the reasons of Mullins J and the order her Honour proposes.
MULLINS J: The applicant who is an indigenous woman was convicted on 21 July 2016 after a seven day trial in the District Court of four counts of torture, one count of rape and four counts of common assault. The complainants are daughters of the applicant. The applicant was sentenced on 21 July 2016 to nine years’ imprisonment for the count of torture that was count 11 and five years’ imprisonment for each of the other counts of torture (counts 3, 5 and 9). A serious violent offence declaration was made in relation to each of those offences. In respect of the other offences (counts 1, 4, 6 and 10), the applicant was convicted and not further punished. The applicant was acquitted of counts 2, 7 and 13 and a nolle prosequi was entered during the course of the trial in respect of count 8.
The applicant filed an application for an extension…

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 NX

Details

AGLC: R v NX [2018] QCA 325
Case: [2018] QCA 325
Decision Date: 23 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant was convicted in the County Court of Victoria of four counts of torture, one count of rape and four counts of common assault committed against her four daughters. She was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for one count of torture, and five years' imprisonment for each of the other counts of torture, with serious violent offence declarations made in respect of those counts. The applicant was convicted, but not further punished in respect of the other counts. The applicant sought an extension of time in which to appeal against the convictions and apply for leave to appeal against the sentences. The application was brought before the Court of Appeal.

The central issue for the court was whether it was in the interests of justice to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the convictions and apply for leave to appeal against the sentences. The applicant was representing herself and had not provided any explanation for her delay in lodging the application for an extension of time. The court considered the principles of justice and fairness, as well as the need to ensure the finality of judgments.

The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The applicant had not provided any explanation for the delay in lodging the application, and the court was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring the finality of judgments, and the need to maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. The application for an extension of time was refused.

The court did not make any orders in relation to the appeal against the conviction or the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, as the application for an extension of time was refused. The applicant was not granted any further time to appeal against the convictions or apply for leave to appeal against the sentences. The court's decision reinforces the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for appeals, and the need to ensure the finality of judgments in the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against sentence 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 NX [2018] QCA 325
PARTIES:	R v NX (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 295 of 2017 DC No 40 of 2015
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction & Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Rockhampton – Date of Sentence: 21 July 2016 (Smith DCJA)
DELIVERED ON:	23 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 November 2018
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Mullins J
ORDER:	Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction and apply for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was convicted after trial of four counts of torture, one count of rape and four counts of common assault committed against her daughters – where the applicant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment on one count of torture and five years’ imprisonment for each of the other counts of torture – where serious violent offence declarations made in respect of those counts – where the applicant was convicted and not further punished in respect of the other counts – where the applicant applies for an extension of time in which to appeal against the convictions and apply for leave to appeal against the sentences – where the applicant represented herself – whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension of time R v BH; ex parte Attorney-General (2000) 110 A Crim R 499; [2000] QCA 110, considered R v HAC[2006] QCA 460, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, followed
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent