R v Saltmarsh

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Saltmarsh [2006] QCA 484
PARTIES: R
v
SALTMARSH, Tammy Cherie
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 267 of 2006 DC No 835 of 2006 DC No 1275 of 2006
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING
COURT: District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED
EXTEMPORE ON: 20 November 2006
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 20 November 2006
JUDGES: de Jersey CJ, Jerrard and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: That time be extended, as necessary, to regularise the
applicant’s application for leave to appeal against
sentence
CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where a full record containing the transcript of the hearing before the primary judge was unavailable – where consideration of the merits of the sentence should only be examined in a full context – whether an extension of time should be granted
R v Smith [2005] QCA 26; CA No 380 of 2004, 14 February
2005, cited
COUNSEL: P J Callaghan SC for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS: Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is a case where the sentence should be examined with the benefit of a record book containing a transcript of the hearing before the primary Judge so that the sentence can be assessed, particularly, in the context of the Court of Appeal decision in Smith, Court of Appeal 380 of 2004. In short, if the applicant has an arguable case, it should be assessed on the basis of a full record. That warrants our making this order, which is made, that time be extended, as necessary, to regularise the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence.

JERRARD JA: I agree.

HOLMES JA: I agree.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Saltmarsh, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal against the sentence imposed by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant had been convicted of several offences and was seeking to challenge the severity of the sentence. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge his appeal, given that a full record of the proceedings, including the transcript of the hearing, was unavailable.

The court considered whether the lack of a full record precluded it from considering the merits of the sentence appeal. The applicant argued that the absence of a transcript made it impossible to properly assess the sentence, and that the appeal should be considered on its merits despite the procedural irregularity. The court had to decide if the procedural irregularity was significant enough to deny the applicant the opportunity to appeal on the merits of the sentence.

The court found that the inability to review the full context of the sentencing proceedings was a substantial impediment to assessing the merits of the appeal. It held that in such circumstances, the applicant should be granted an extension of time to lodge his appeal. The court acknowledged the importance of ensuring that appeals are not dismissed on procedural grounds when the merits of the sentence could be significant. The court concluded that it was in the interests of justice to allow the appeal to proceed, subject to the applicant regularising his application.

Accordingly, the court granted an extension of time for the applicant to regularise his application for leave to appeal against the sentence. This decision ensures that the applicant has the opportunity to challenge the sentence on its merits, even in the absence of a complete record of the proceedings.

Orders of the court

That time be extended, as necessary, to regularise the

applicant’s application for leave to appeal against

sentence

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	R v Saltmarsh [2006] QCA 484
PARTIES:	R v SALTMARSH, Tammy Cherie (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 267 of 2006 DC No 835 of 2006 DC No 1275 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED
EXTEMPORE ON:	20 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 November 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Jerrard and Holmes JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	That time be extended, as necessary, to regularise the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – where a full record containing the transcript of the hearing before the primary judge was unavailable – where consideration of the merits of the sentence should only be examined in a full context – whether an extension of time should be granted
R v Smith [2005] QCA 26; CA No 380 of 2004, 14 February 2005, cited
COUNSEL:	P J Callaghan SC for the applicant B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Callaghan Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent