R v Waine

Case [2005] QCA 170


COURT OF APPEAL  [2005] QCA 170

WILLIAMS JA
JERRARD JA
MULLINS J

CA No 70 of 2005

THE QUEEN

v.

PATRICIA JOYCE WAINE  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/05/2005

ORDER

WILLIAMS JA:  The applicant was convicted in the District Court at Maryborough on the 18th February 2005 with seven counts of wilful damage.  She gave instructions to her solicitor to lodge an appeal against conviction and documents were duly prepared. 

The solicitor posted the documents to the Registry believing that they would be received by the Registry by the last day, namely the 18th March, which was a Friday.  In fact the documents were not received in the Registry until the 21st March 2005, the following Monday.

In consequence it is necessary for the applicant to obtain an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction.  In those circumstances, the delay being extremely short and there being a satisfactory explanation for the failure to have the documents lodged in time, it falls to consider whether or not there are reasonable prospects of success on an appeal.

Counsel for the Crown has conceded in his written outline that the applicant's material prima facie raises issues which require an examination of the record book in order to resolve them. 

In those circumstances it is appropriate for the Court to grant the application for an extension of time.

The order of the Court will be that the time for filing a notice of appeal against conviction be extended to 21st March 2005.

That will be the order of the Court.

-----

Details
AGLC
R v Waine [2005] QCA 170
Case
[2005] QCA 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Waine involved Patricia Joyce Waine, who was convicted on seven counts of wilful damage by the District Court at Maryborough on February 18, 2005. Waine had instructed her solicitor to appeal against her conviction, and the necessary documents were duly prepared. However, the solicitor believed the documents would be received by the Registry by the last day for filing, which was March 18, a Friday. Unfortunately, the documents were not received until March 21, 2005, which was a Monday. Consequently, Waine needed an extension of time to appeal against her conviction.

The legal issues before the court were whether the delay in filing the appeal documents was so short and had a satisfactory explanation that an extension of time should be granted, and if the applicant had reasonable prospects of success on appeal. Counsel for the Crown conceded that the applicant's material prima facie raised issues that required an examination of the record book to resolve them. The court had to determine whether it was appropriate to grant the application for an extension of time and if there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

The court, after considering the circumstances, found that the delay was extremely short and had a satisfactory explanation, as the solicitor believed the documents would be received on time. The court also found that the applicant's material prima facie raised issues that required an examination of the record book to resolve them. Therefore, the court granted the application for an extension of time and found that there were reasonable prospects of success on appeal.

The final order of the court was that the time for filing a notice of appeal against conviction be extended to March 21, 2005.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.