R v Verrall - [2011] QCA 206

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Verrall [2011] QCA 206

PARTIES:

R
v
VERRALL, Steven Peter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 169 of 2011
SC No 1500 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

25 August 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 August 2011

JUDGES:

Fraser and White JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Delivered ex tempore on 25 August 2011:

Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is granted

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – POWER TO BRING APPEAL – FROM INTERLOCUTORY OR ANTECEDENT JUDGMENT OR ORDER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 16 offences – where the applicant brought an application in the trial division to set aside his pleas of guilty – where the application was refused by the primary judge – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction – where the applicant contended that he had an appeal within time against the decision of the primary judge refusing the application to set aside the pleas of guilty – whether an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction should be granted

R v Lowrie [1998] 2 Qd R 579; [1997] QCA 434, considered
R v Nerbas [2011] QCA 199, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
J N Hanna for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

FRASER JA: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against a conviction entered on the applicant's plea of guilty. However, the applicant contends that he has an appeal lodged within time against a subsequent decision which refused him leave to withdraw his pleas of guilty. Before I go further, it's as well I mention the chronology.

On the 11th of November 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty before Justice Mullins to 16 offences. On 30th May 2011 Justice Byrne refused the applicant's application to set aside his pleas of guilty. On the 21st of June this year the applicant applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction. He has, however, as I have said, contended that he has a right to appeal against the decision of Justice Byrne refusing his application to set aside his pleas of guilty. If so, he has an appeal from that decision within time.

The applicant cited the Court's decision in R v Nerbas [2011] QCA 199 for the proposition that he has a right to appeal from Justice Byrne's decision, and on the face of that decision his submission is correct. The decision does appear to be authority for the proposition that a person in the applicant's position has a right of appeal against the…

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 Verrall

Details

AGLC: R v Verrall [2011] QCA 206
Case: [2011] QCA 206
Decision Date: 25 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Verrall involved the appellant who had previously pleaded guilty to 16 offences. The appellant then applied to the trial division to set aside his pleas of guilty, which was ultimately refused by the primary judge. The appellant then sought an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the primary judge. The legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had a right to appeal within the time limits set out by law against the decision of the primary judge refusing to set aside the pleas of guilty. The court considered the relevant provisions of the law and the circumstances of the case before it. It found that the appellant had a valid ground for appeal and that the application for an extension of time was made within a reasonable time. The court granted the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction.

The court found that the appellant had a valid ground for appeal against the decision of the primary judge. The court considered that the appellant had acted promptly in making the application for an extension of time and that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The court held that the appellant had a right to appeal within the time limits set out by law against the decision of the primary judge. The court found that the appellant had made a valid application for an extension of time and that the application was made within a reasonable time. The court granted the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Delivered ex tempore on 25 August 2011:

Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is granted

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 Verrall [2011] QCA 206
PARTIES:	R v VERRALL, Steven Peter (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 169 of 2011 SC No 1500 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	25 August 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 August 2011
JUDGES:	Fraser and White JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Delivered ex tempore on 25 August 2011: Application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction is granted
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – POWER TO BRING APPEAL – FROM INTERLOCUTORY OR ANTECEDENT JUDGMENT OR ORDER – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 16 offences – where the applicant brought an application in the trial division to set aside his pleas of guilty – where the application was refused by the primary judge – where the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction – where the applicant contended that he had an appeal within time against the decision of the primary judge refusing the application to set aside the pleas of guilty – whether an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction should be granted R v Lowrie [1998] 2 Qd R 579; [1997] QCA 434, considered R v Nerbas [2011] QCA 199, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf J N Hanna for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent