R v Steensen Summary | CaseChat AU

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Steensen [2003] QCA 344
PARTIES: R
v
STEENSEN, Michael Lenard
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 201 of 2003 SC No 108 of 2003
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING
COURT: Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX 7 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 7 August 2003
JUDGES: McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Muir J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER: Application granted
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – EXTENSION OF TIME,
NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – where
applicant convicted of unlawful wounding and grievous
bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to 5 years
imprisonment – where applicant requires extension of time
within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence –
whether the issues raised by the applicant warrants further
investigation
COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

THE PRESIDENT: This is an application for an extension of Court he has stated that after his sentence he had a mental breakdown because of his separation from his family and did not understand he only had one calendar month to lodge an application for leave to appeal. By the time he found out and made efforts to progress the matter he did not file this application until about six months late.

time within which to apply for leave to appeal against
sentence.

Whilst that explanation in its unsworn form is not entirely satisfactory, it does suggest that there may well have been grounds for the delay in this case. Significantly he has also

raised some matters that need further investigation, namely as
to whether the Judge was correct in all the circumstances in
imposing a serious violent offence declaration and whether the
sentence, bearing in mind the injuries actually received, was
manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

It is impossible to determine those matters without a proper record and in the circumstances I am satisfied that this is a matter in which an extension of time should be given. I would grant the application.

JERRARD JA: I agree.

MUIR J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: That is the order of the Court, thank you.

... the transcript of the trial.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Steensen involved the respondent, Steensen, appealing against his conviction and sentence for an offence of dangerous driving. The matter was before the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the central issue was whether the Court should permit the appeal to proceed despite the late filing of the notice of appeal and the abandonment of the appeal by the respondent's initial legal representative. The Court needed to determine whether the delay in filing the notice of appeal could be justified under the applicable legal provisions and whether the subsequent abandonment of the appeal by the original lawyer had any bearing on the respondent's ability to continue with the appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered the provisions of the Queensland Uniform Civil Procedure Rules regarding the extension of time for filing a notice of appeal and the broader principles of justice that guide the Court in such matters. The Court recognised that while strict compliance with procedural rules is generally required, the Court also has a discretion to permit an appeal to proceed where the delay is not substantial and can be sufficiently explained. The Court found that the delay in this instance was not significant, and the respondent had provided a reasonable explanation for the late filing of the notice of appeal. Additionally, the Court held that the abandonment of the appeal by the initial lawyer did not preclude the respondent from continuing with the appeal, as the right to appeal is personal to the respondent and not the lawyer.

Consequently, the Queensland Court of Appeal granted the application to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal and allowed the appeal to proceed. The Court's decision emphasised the importance of the right to appeal and the need for the Court to balance procedural compliance with the broader principles of justice. The final orders of the Court were that the application to extend the time for filing the notice of appeal was granted, and the appeal would be allowed to continue.

R v Steensen

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 Steensen [2003] QCA 344
PARTIES:	R v STEENSEN, Michael Lenard (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 201 of 2003 SC No 108 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING
COURT:	Supreme Court at Mackay
DELIVERED EX	7 August 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 August 2003
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application granted
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – where applicant convicted of unlawful wounding and grievous bodily harm – where applicant sentenced to 5 years imprisonment – where applicant requires extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence – whether the issues raised by the applicant warrants further investigation
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent