R v Renton

[2001] QCA 403

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
CHESTERMAN J
MULLINS J

CA No 227 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ELWYN STUART RENTON

BRISBANE

..DATE 25/09/2001

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: Elwyn Stuart Renton was arrested pursuant to a bench warrant issued out of the District Court at Rockhampton. He was immediately after his arrest taken before Judge O'Brien sitting in the District Court Brisbane. The matter was adjourned to Rockhampton and the applicant was granted bail.

Subsequent to that the applicant filed in this Court what purports to be a notice of appeal contending that the bench warrant was, to use the words on the notice of appeal, "made out mistakenly". It then is asserted that the bench warrant is invalid.

This is not an appeal to this Court from a conviction pursuant to section 668 of the Criminal Code and in The Queen v. Lowrie [1998] 2 Queensland Reports 579, Justices Davies and Pincus held that there is no right of appeal to this Court from an interlocutory order in criminal proceedings. That decision was confirmed by the majority in the recent decision of re Robert Paul Long [2001] QCA 318.

It appears that the appellant has not received notice of today's hearing because he has left the address that he gave to this Court as his address for service; that also happens to be his residential address for purposes of the bail order.

He was initially notified by the Registry that there were jurisdictional problems. The matter was listed for hearing before the Court so that the matter could be brought to a head.

In the circumstances it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the notice of appeal and in the circumstances it should be struck out.

CHESTERMAN J: I agree. It is unusual that a Court would dismiss an application in the absence of the applicant when it was the Court itself which set the application down for hearing and the applicant is unaware of the event, but the applicant's only point is that the warrant for his arrest should not have issued.

The only consequence of the warrant was that he was brought before the Court and then given bail. There is no possible prejudice to the applicant by the application being dismissed and I agree with the order proposed.

MULLINS J: I also agree with the order proposed and the reasons for that order.

WILLIAMS JA: The order will be as I have indicated; the appeal is struck out.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Elwyn Stuart Renton, the appellant sought to appeal a bench warrant issued by the District Court at Rockhampton. The warrant was executed, and Renton was brought before the court in Brisbane, where he was granted bail. Renton filed a notice of appeal in the Court of Appeal, arguing that the bench warrant was mistakenly issued and thus invalid. The central legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from an interlocutory order in criminal proceedings. This question was informed by previous cases such as The Queen v. Lowrie and re Robert Paul Long, which established that there is no right of appeal from an interlocutory order in criminal matters.

The Court of Appeal, led by Justice Williams, found that the appeal did not fall within the jurisdiction of the court. The court cited established precedent that interlocutory orders in criminal cases, such as the issuance of a bench warrant, are not appealable. The court noted that the appellant had not been notified of the hearing, which further complicated the jurisdiction issue. Despite the appellant’s absence, the court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed due to the lack of jurisdiction. Justices Chesterman and Mullins concurred with this decision, emphasizing that the appellant had not suffered any prejudice from the dismissal of the appeal.

The Court of Appeal ultimately decided to strike out the appeal, aligning with the precedent set in previous cases. The court held that the appellant's sole contention regarding the bench warrant did not provide a basis for the court to exercise its jurisdiction. Given that the appellant had been granted bail and that there was no prejudice to him, the court was satisfied with the proposed order. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and no further orders were made in relation to the substantive matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established