R v Templeton - [2023] QCA 145

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Templeton [2023] QCA 145

PARTIES:

R
v
TEMPLETON, Bradley Robert
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 90 of 2021
DC No 332 of 2020

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich – Date of Sentence: 22 April 2021 (Lynch KC DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 13 July 2023
Date of Publication of Reasons: 21 July 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 July 2023

JUDGES:

Bond and Boddice JJA and Bradley J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 13 July 2023

The proceeding is dismissed for want of prosecution.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – HEARING OF APPEAL – NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against sentence on 7 May 2021 – where the hearing was adjourned on three separate occasions for the applicant to pursue a Legal Aid application – where the applicant failed to file an outline of submissions by the dates fixed by the registry – where the applicant failed to appear – where the respondent applied orally for the application to be struck out for want of prosecution – whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1999] 2 Qd R 113; [1998] QCA 114, cited
Quinlan v Rothwell [2002] 1 Qd R 647; [2001] QCA 176, cited
Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd [1968] 2 NSWR 529; (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 405, cited

COUNSEL:

No appearance for the applicant
J Bishop for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: On 22 April 2021, the applicant was convicted on his own guilty pleas of two counts of sexual assault. That day, he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of three months and six months, to be served concurrently. The sentence was suspended with immediate effect for an operational period of two years. On 7 May 2021, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.
On 13 July 2023, the applicant’s application was heard. The applicant did not appear when his name was called three times.
At the hearing, the respondent made an oral application for the Court to strike out the application for want of prosecution. The respondent tendered a “Memorandum of Non-Compliance” (the Memorandum), prepared by the Registry, which was marked as an exhibit. An order striking out the application for want of prosecution was made at the hearing on 13 July 2023. These are the reasons for that order.
The Memorandum and attached correspondence record the following relevant facts:
(a)On 2 November 2021, the Registry posted an Appeal Record Book and Listing Letter to the applicant’s residential address. The letter advised that the application had been listed for 24 February 2022 and that the applicant was to provide his written outline of submissions by 27 January 2022.
(b)On…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Templeton

Details

AGLC: R v Templeton [2023] QCA 145
Case: [2023] QCA 145
Decision Date: 13 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Templeton involved the applicant seeking leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by a lower court. The applicant filed an application on 7 May 2021, but the hearing was adjourned on three occasions, each time to allow the applicant to pursue a Legal Aid application. Despite these adjournments, the applicant did not file the required outline of submissions by the dates set by the registry, and subsequently failed to appear at the scheduled hearing. The respondent then applied orally for the application to be struck out due to the applicant's lack of prosecution. The court was tasked with deciding whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's failure to file an outline of submissions and to appear at the hearing warranted the dismissal of the application for leave to appeal. The court considered the procedural requirements and the principles of justice and fairness in determining the appropriate course of action. The applicant's repeated failure to meet the procedural deadlines, despite multiple adjournments to facilitate the application for Legal Aid, indicated a lack of diligence on the part of the applicant. The court concluded that the applicant's non-appearance and failure to comply with the procedural requirements justified the dismissal of the application.

The court determined that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court held that the applicant's non-appearance and failure to comply with the procedural requirements warranted the dismissal of the application. The court emphasised the importance of meeting procedural deadlines and the need for applicants to demonstrate a reasonable level of diligence in pursuing their applications. The court's decision was based on the principle that the court must ensure that its resources are not wasted on applications that are not being pursued with due diligence.

The final order of the court was that the proceeding was dismissed for want of prosecution, effective from 13 July 2023. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the need for applicants to demonstrate a reasonable level of diligence in pursuing their applications. The dismissal of the application for leave to appeal in this case serves as a reminder to all parties of the need to comply with the court's procedural requirements and to pursue their applications with due diligence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 13 July 2023

The proceeding is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Templeton [2023] QCA 145
PARTIES:	R v TEMPLETON, Bradley Robert (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 90 of 2021 DC No 332 of 2020
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich – Date of Sentence: 22 April 2021 (Lynch KC DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 13 July 2023 Date of Publication of Reasons: 21 July 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	13 July 2023
JUDGES:	Bond and Boddice JJA and Bradley J
ORDER:	Date of Order: 13 July 2023 The proceeding is dismissed for want of prosecution.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – HEARING OF APPEAL – NON-APPEARANCE OF PARTIES – where the applicant filed an application for leave to appeal against sentence on 7 May 2021 – where the hearing was adjourned on three separate occasions for the applicant to pursue a Legal Aid application – where the applicant failed to file an outline of submissions by the dates fixed by the registry – where the applicant failed to appear – where the respondent applied orally for the application to be struck out for want of prosecution – whether the application should be dismissed for want of prosecution Cooper v Hopgood & Ganim [1999] 2 Qd R 113; [1998] QCA 114, cited Quinlan v Rothwell [2002] 1 Qd R 647; [2001] QCA 176, cited Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd [1968] 2 NSWR 529; (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 405, cited
COUNSEL:	No appearance for the applicant J Bishop for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent