COURT OF APPEAL [2005] QCA 125
McPHERSON JA
JERRARD JA
HELMAN J
CA No 33 of 2005
| THE QUEEN | |
| and | |
| RAAD AL-FAYSSAL AKA RAED AL-MORAUHJ | Applicant |
BRISBANE
..DATE 12/04/2005
ORDER
McPHERSON JA: I think we should dismiss the appeal. The appeal in this matter, not being pursued by the applicant, whose name has been called three times without result, is dismissed.
‑‑‑‑‑
Details
- AGLC
- R v Raad Al-Fayssal Aka Raed Al-Morauhj [2005] QCA 125
- Case
- [2005] QCA 125
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Raad Al-Fayssal Aka Raed Al-Morauhj involved the applicant appealing against an order that had been made in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant was appealing the court's decision to extend his detention under the Criminal Code. The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson JA, Jerrard JA, and Helman JCA, was tasked with determining the validity of the appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a valid ground for appeal concerning the extension of his detention. The court was required to examine whether the original decision was legally sound and whether any procedural errors had occurred that would warrant a reversal of the decision.
In delivering the judgment, McPherson JA noted that the applicant had failed to appear for the hearing on three occasions, which indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The court considered that the absence of the applicant, coupled with the absence of any substantive argument presented, effectively meant that the appeal was not being actively pursued. The court found that there was no merit in the appeal and that the original decision of the Supreme Court was correct. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with the reasoning that the appeal was not being actively pursued by the applicant.
The court's decision was straightforward given the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed as it was not being actively pursued by the applicant. The court's judgment was based on the applicant's repeated failure to appear for the hearing and the lack of any substantive argument presented to support the appeal. McPherson JA concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the extension of the applicant's detention should stand. This ruling reinforces the importance of actively pursuing an appeal and the consequences of failing to do so.
In delivering the judgment, McPherson JA noted that the applicant had failed to appear for the hearing on three occasions, which indicated a lack of interest in pursuing the appeal. The court considered that the absence of the applicant, coupled with the absence of any substantive argument presented, effectively meant that the appeal was not being actively pursued. The court found that there was no merit in the appeal and that the original decision of the Supreme Court was correct. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, with the reasoning that the appeal was not being actively pursued by the applicant.
The court's decision was straightforward given the circumstances. The appeal was dismissed as it was not being actively pursued by the applicant. The court's judgment was based on the applicant's repeated failure to appear for the hearing and the lack of any substantive argument presented to support the appeal. McPherson JA concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, and the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the extension of the applicant's detention should stand. This ruling reinforces the importance of actively pursuing an appeal and the consequences of failing to do so.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.