Legal Research
Cases
R v Sommer

R v Sommer

Case [2010] QCA 229

Appeal

Jurisdiction

Contempt of Court

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2010] QCA 229

COURT OF APPEAL

MUIR JA
CHESTERMAN JA
MULLINS J

CA No 105 of 2010
SC No 24 of 2010

THE QUEEN

BENJAMIN LEONARD SOMMER Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 26/08/2010

JUDGMENT

No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant

MR D R KINSELLA, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, for the respondent

MUIR JA: When this matter was called for hearing there was no appearance by the applicant. The matter was called three times and there was still no appearance.

It is appropriate in the circumstances then for the application to be struck out.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.

MUIR JA: The order is that the application be struck out.

Details

AGLC: R v Sommer [2010] QCA 229
Case: [2010] QCA 229
Decision Date: 26/08/2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sommer involved Benjamin Leonard Sommer, the applicant, and the Queen, the respondent. Sommer's application was heard by the Court of Appeal, with Justice Muir, Justice Chesterman, and Justice Mullins presiding. Sommer did not appear or have representation at the hearing, despite the matter being called multiple times. This absence led to the court considering the appropriate action regarding the application.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether to proceed with the application in the absence of the applicant. Given Sommer's non-appearance and lack of representation, the court needed to determine if it was appropriate to strike out the application. The court considered the circumstances and the procedural requirements for such a decision.

The court unanimously agreed that it was appropriate to strike out the application due to the applicant's non-appearance and lack of representation. Justice Muir, supported by Justice Chesterman and Justice Mullins, concluded that the application should be dismissed. The court's reasoning was based on the procedural requirement for the applicant to be present or represented, and the failure to comply with this requirement justified the striking out of the application.

The final order was that the application be struck out, effectively dismissing Sommer's application due to his absence and lack of representation at the hearing.

Orders