R v Sams

[2003] QCA 81

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J
PHILIPPIDES J

CA No 266 of 2002 CA No 304 of 2002

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN JOHN SAMS	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 03/03/2003
ORDER 03032003 T2/JAP M/T COA31/2003

MR FEENEY (instructed by Bernard Bradley & Associates) for the applicant

MR B G CAMPBELL (instructed by Director of Public

Prosecutions) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: The Court has come to the conclusion that this is a case in which having regard to the fact that there is a need for an explanation of the notice of abandonment and its attempted withdrawal and for other reasons there should be a

hearing of the appeal in this case.

We will therefore order that the application for adjournment be granted and that the appeal and the applications be heard on a date to be fixed. It will, of course, be necessary for

the appellant, or applicant, to file an affidavit or
affidavits in support of his explanation for withdrawing the

appeal after it had been properly lodged.

-----

40
50

2 ORDER 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sams involved an appeal by the appellant, Stephen John Sams, against his conviction and sentence. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal, with McPherson JA, Mackenzie J, and Philippides J presiding. The appellant was represented by Mr Feeney, while the respondent, the Queen, was represented by Mr B G Campbell. The appeal concerned the validity of the appellant's notice of abandonment of his appeal and his subsequent attempt to withdraw that abandonment.

The primary legal issue the Court of Appeal had to decide was whether the appellant's notice of abandonment of his appeal, which was subsequently withdrawn, was valid and if the Court should entertain the appeal despite the initial abandonment. The Court needed to determine whether the appellant's actions were in compliance with the legal procedures and if there were any exceptional circumstances justifying the withdrawal of the abandonment.

The Court of Appeal held that the appellant's notice of abandonment was not valid as it did not comply with the necessary legal requirements. However, the Court also acknowledged the need for an explanation regarding the notice of abandonment and its attempted withdrawal. Given the complexities involved and the necessity for a proper explanation, the Court decided that the appeal should be heard. The appellant was required to provide an affidavit or affidavits explaining the reasons for withdrawing the appeal after it had been properly lodged. Consequently, the Court granted the application for an adjournment to allow for the appeal and the applications to be heard on a later date.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established