Legal Research
Cases
R v. Ottley

R v. Ottley

Case [2010] QCA 239 9 March 2010

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2010] QCA 239

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES JA
CHESTERMAN JA
WHITE JA

CA No 143 of 2010
DC No 160 of 2008

THE QUEEN

SHANNON MATHEW OTTLEY Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 03/09/2010

JUDGMENT

APPLICANT appeared on his own behalf.

MR M B LEHANE, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland), for the respondent

...

HOLMES JA: The application for an extension of time within which to lodge a further appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence must be refused since the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear either the appeal or the application.

That is the order I would make.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree with it.

WHITE JA: I agree also.

HOLMES JA: That is the order of the Court.

Details

AGLC: R v Ottley [2010] QCA 239
Case: [2010] QCA 239
Decision Date: 03/09/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v. Ottley, the applicant, Shannon Mathew Ottley, sought an extension of time to lodge a further appeal against his conviction and an application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The case was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with Holmes JA, Chesterman JA, and White JA presiding. Ottley appeared in person, while the respondent was represented by Mr M B Lehane, who was instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland).

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's application for an extension of time to lodge a further appeal against his conviction and his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court needed to determine if the application was made within the appropriate time frame and if the Court had the authority to grant the extension.

The Court of Appeal held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal or the application for leave to appeal. Holmes JA, with the concurrence of Chesterman JA and White JA, stated that the Court would refuse the application for an extension of time to lodge a further appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court's decision was based on the conclusion that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the application. As a result, the Court ordered that the application for an extension of time to lodge a further appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders