Legal Research
Cases
R v Twidale

R v Twidale

Case [2009] QCA 200 17 July 2009

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200

PARTIES:

R
v
TWIDALE, Lisa Rose
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 89 of 2009
DC No 1649 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2009

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 July 2009

JUDGES:

Muir and Fraser JJA and Wilson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,

each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where applicant seeks extension of time in which to appeal against sentence – where application made about 1.5 months late – where applicant’s excuse for delay is ignorance of time limit – where proposed appeal not viable – whether the application for extension of time should be granted

R v DAQ[2008] QCA 75, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, applied

R v Wheeler & Sorrensen[2002] QCA 223, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf

D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

MUIR JA: I agree with the reasons of Wilson J and with the order she proposes.

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons of Wilson J and with the order her Honour proposes.

WILSON J: On 2 February 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty to fraud as an employee, to the value of $5,000 or more, between 1 January 2000 and 3 April 2007. It was a timely plea. She was sentenced to seven years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date fixed at 2 June 2011 (after serving 28 months).

Eleven weeks later, on 20 April 2009, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the severity of the sentence, and an application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

An application for leave to appeal against sentence must be brought within one calendar month of the sentence: Criminal Code s 671. This Court has a discretionary power to extend that time limit.

“[T]he Court will examine whether there is any good reason shown to account for the delay and consider overall whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension.”

See R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667 at 668; see also R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75 at para [8] - [11]. Factors the Court will consider include the viability of the appeal, the length of the delay and the reason for it, the public interest in the finality of litigation, whether the application for an extension of time is an abuse of…

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 Twidale

Details

AGLC: R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200
Case: [2009] QCA 200
Decision Date: 17 July 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Twidale, the appellant sought an extension of time to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court of Queensland. The applicant's initial application for leave to appeal was made approximately 1.5 months after the statutory deadline had passed, and the primary reason cited for the delay was the applicant's unawareness of the time limit. The appeal itself, if granted, would challenge the sentence on the basis that it was excessive and manifestly unjust. The court had to consider whether to grant an extension of time, despite the delay and the unlikelihood of a successful appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time should be granted, despite the delay and the unlikelihood of a successful appeal. The court considered the principles applicable to such extensions, including the factors that may justify or negate the granting of an extension. These principles involve an assessment of the applicant's diligence in pursuing the appeal, the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal, and the impact of any delay on the administration of justice. In this case, the applicant's lack of diligence, as evidenced by the significant delay and the speculative nature of the proposed appeal grounds, weighed heavily against the grant of an extension. Additionally, the court noted that the delay had caused inconvenience to the respondent, further undermining the applicant's case.

Upon reviewing the circumstances, the court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed. The court found that the applicant's excuse for the delay, namely ignorance of the time limit, was insufficient to warrant an extension. The court emphasised the importance of meeting statutory deadlines for appeals and noted that the proposed grounds of appeal were not compelling. The court also highlighted the negative impact of the delay on the administration of justice, including the respondent's inconvenience. As a result, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time, leaving the original sentence unchallenged.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200

Most Recent Citation

R v BBV [2010] QCA 61

Cases citing this decision · 11 of 11 shown

Simonds Queensland Constructions Pty Ltd v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2023] QCAT 441 Para 21

…in the most efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation [ R v Twindale [2009] QCA 200]. For these reasons, the underlying premise is that, in the absence of compelling circumstances, time limits must be complied with and should be enfo…
Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2019] QCATA 11 Para 6

…Citing R v Twindale [2009] QCA 200 (Wilson J).…
R v Kelly
[2018] QCA 307

…, followed Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25, applied R v Pinnuck [2014] QCA 189 , considered R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200 , considered COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf C N Marco for the respondent SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecu…
McCrystal v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2018] QCAT 207 Para 21

…he most efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation [ R v Twindale [2009] QCA 200]. [15] For these reasons, the underlying premise is that, in the absence of compelling circumstances, time limits must be complied with and should be enf…
Jensen v Queensland Building and Construction Commission
[2017] QCAT 232 Para 6

…in the most efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation [ R v Twindale [2009] QCA 200]. [15] For these reasons, the underlying premise is that, in the absence of compelling circumstances, time limits must be complied with and should be…
N+S Newham Pty Ltd v Cost-U-Less Concreting Pty Ltd
[2015] QCAT 36 Para 11

…efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation.”[7] [7] R v Twindale [2009] QCA 200 per Margaret Wilson J.…
Queensland Building and Construction Commission v Macdonald
[2014] QCATA 353 Para 20

…ost efficient and quick way. Compliance with time limits is also consistent with the public interest in finality of litigation.[21] [21] R v Twindale [2009] QCA 200 per Margaret Wilson J.…
Coppens v Water Wise Design Pty Ltd
[2014] QCATA 309 Para 7

…ade for a collateral and improper purpose and, in the unusual case where it is a live issue in a criminal appeal, any prejudice to the respondent. [8][2009] QCA 200.…
R v Williams
[2014] QCA 154 Para 1

…The sentencing judge was referred to four Court of Appeal decisions, being R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24, R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200, R v Goodenough [2010] QCA 238 and R v Wilson [2013] QCA 260, which provide more authoritative assistance. When regard is had to those authorities, it is readily apparent that the sente…
R v Goodenough
[2010] QCA 238

…] QCA 307, considered R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, applied R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24, considered R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200, considered COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on his own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecution…
R v BBV
[2010] QCA 61

…– whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200, cited COUNSEL: C Heaton for the applicant M B Lehane for the respondent SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)…

View all 11 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 4 of 4 shown

R v Daq
[2008] QCA 75

…ce of time limit – where proposed appeal not viable – whether the application for extension of time should be granted R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24, applied R v Wheeler & Sorrensen [2002] QCA 223, applied COUNSEL: The applicant appeared o…
R v Tindale
[2008] QCA 24 Para 1

…In R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24 the applicant pleaded guilty to fraud involving the misappropriation over $425,000 from her employer and friend in 132 transactions over four and a half years. The applicant was aged between 36 and 41 years at the time of offending and 42 at sentence. She had no criminal history. Her…
R v Wheeler & Sorrensen
[2002] QCA 223 Para 1

…In R v Wheeler & Sorrensen [2002] QCA 223 the applicants were directors of a company which carried on business as licensed auctioneers and motor dealers. They participated in a scheme to misappropriate trust funds amounting to more than $630,000 in a misguided attempt to keep the business running and so protect t…
R v Tait
[1998] QCA 304

…le – whether the application for extension of time should be granted R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24, applied R v Wheeler & Sorrensen [2002] QCA 223, applied COUNSEL: The applicant appeared on her own behalf D C Boyle for the respondent SOLI…

Legislation cited in this decision · 0

No legislation cited in this case.

CITATION:	R v Twidale [2009] QCA 200
PARTIES:	R v TWIDALE, Lisa Rose (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 89 of 2009 DC No 1649 of 2008
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 July 2009
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 July 2009
JUDGES:	Muir and Fraser JJA and Wilson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time within which to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where applicant seeks extension of time in which to appeal against sentence – where application made about 1.5 months late – where applicant’s excuse for delay is ignorance of time limit – where proposed appeal not viable – whether the application for extension of time should be granted R v DAQ[2008] QCA 75, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, applied R v Wheeler & Sorrensen[2002] QCA 223, applied
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent