R v RAH

Case [2011] QCA 35

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v RAH [2011] QCA 35

PARTIES:

R
v
RAH
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 297 of 2010
DC No 326 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

8 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

11 February 2011

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir and White JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence and conviction is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence and conviction – where the applicant signed a notice of abandonment of his appeal – where the applicant was found guilty of one count of rape by digital penetration of his granddaughter – where parts of the complainant’s evidence were inconsistent – whether there was any injustice in the conduct of the trial, the directions of the primary judge or the verdicts returned by the jury

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 564, s 668D(b), s 671
Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 69, r 70
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 93A

Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HCA 45, cited
MacKenzie v The Queen (1996) 190 CLR 348; [1996] HCA 35, cited
R v Abdulla (2010) 200 A Crim R 361, [2010] SASC 52, cited
R v Ali [2008] QCA 39, cited
R v CX[2006] QCA 409, cited
R v Jacobs [1993] 2 Qd R 541, cited
R v MacDonald (1995) SASR 322; (1995) 84 A Crim R 508, cited
R v MAM[2005] QCA 323, cited
R v MBC[2008] QCA 263, cited
R v Nudd[2007] QCA 40, cited
R v SBL[2009] QCA 130, cited
R v Swan (1987) 27 A Crim R 289, cited
R v TU[2009] QCA 386, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D L Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

  1. CHIEF JUSTICE:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of White JA.  I agree with the orders proposed by her Honour, and with her reasons.

  1. MUIR JA:  I agree that the application for an extension of time with which to appeal should be refused for the reasons given by White JA.

  1. WHITE JA:  On 8 October 2009 the applicant was convicted after a trial of one count of rape by digital penetration of his granddaughter, who was aged eight at the time of the offending, and acquitted on another count of digital rape and a count of exposing a child under…

Continue reading R v RAH

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v RAH [2011] QCA 35
Case
[2011] QCA 35
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v RAH involved the appellant who was convicted of raping his granddaughter. The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal both his conviction and sentence. The appeal was dismissed by the District Court of Queensland, and the appellant subsequently sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that there was an injustice in the trial, the judge’s directions, or the jury’s verdicts. The central issue before the court was whether there were any grounds to grant an extension of time for the appeal given that the appellant had already signed a notice of abandonment of his appeal.

The court examined the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal and whether there was any substantial injustice that warranted an extension of time. It considered the inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and whether these affected the fairness of the trial. The court also evaluated the reasons provided by the appellant for the delay in lodging the appeal. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated any substantial injustice or exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the District Court, finding that the appellant had not provided sufficient grounds for an extension of time. The court emphasized that the applicant had signed a notice of abandonment, which constituted a final step in the appeal process. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused, and the appeal was dismissed. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to procedural timelines and the need for compelling reasons to warrant an extension.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence and conviction is 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.