R v Walker - [2020] QCA 281

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Walker [2020] QCA 281

PARTIES:

R
v
WALKER, Amanda May
(applicant)

FILE NOS:

CA No 316 of 2019
CA No 326 of 2018
SC No 1037 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Reopening (Criminal)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 19 November 2018 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

11 December 2020

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2020

JUDGES:

Sofronoff P and Fraser and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

Refuse the application.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – ABANDONMENT OF APPEAL – where, after a two week trial, the applicant was found guilty of five drug offences – where the applicant previously appealed against her convictions and also sought leave to appeal against her sentences – where at the hearing of her application for leave to appeal against sentence in 2019, the applicant’s counsel abandoned the appeal against conviction – where the applicant’s sentence application was refused – where the applicant now applies to reinstate her abandoned conviction appeal – where the applicant led evidence in support of her application – whether the appeal would have any prospects of success – whether the interests of justice make it necessary to reinstate the applicant’s conviction appeal

Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 70(3)

R v Basacar[2008] QCA 285, cited
R v Marriner [2007] 1 Qd R 179; [2006] QCA 32, cited
R v Walker[2019] QCA 199, related

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
G J Cummings for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: After a two week trial, the applicant was found guilty of five drug offences. The applicant was sentenced to six and a half years’ imprisonment on count 1, trafficking in a dangerous drug, and not further punished on the remaining four counts. Parole eligibility would arise at the half-way point in that sentence. Counts 2 to 4 charged possession of dangerous drugs and count 5 charged possession of a mobile phone used in the commission of the trafficking offence.
The applicant previously appealed against her convictions and also sought leave to appeal against her sentences.[1] At the hearing of her application for leave to appeal sentence on 23 September 2019, the applicant’s counsel abandoned the appeal against conviction. The Court reserved its judgment in relation to the application for leave to appeal against her sentence and made an order dismissing the application on 27 September 2019. The applicant now applies to reinstate her abandoned conviction appeal. She filed her application for an extension of time within which to appeal her conviction on 28 November 2019.
[1][2019] QCA 199.
Rule 70(3) of the Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld) provides that the court may set aside an abandonment of an appeal and reinstate it if the court considers that it is necessary to do…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: R v Walker [2020] QCA 281
Case: [2020] QCA 281
Decision Date: 11 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved an applicant who had been found guilty of five drug offences following a two-week trial. After the trial, the applicant appealed against her convictions and also sought leave to appeal against her sentences. During the hearing of her application for leave to appeal against sentence in 2019, the applicant's counsel abandoned the appeal against conviction. The applicant's sentence application was subsequently refused. The applicant now sought to reinstate her abandoned conviction appeal. She led evidence in support of her application.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the appeal against conviction would have any prospects of success and whether the interests of justice required the reinstatement of the applicant's conviction appeal. The court considered the principles governing the abandonment of appeals and the discretion available to the court to reinstate an abandoned appeal. It also examined the evidence led by the applicant to assess the potential merits of the appeal.

After considering the evidence and the arguments presented, the court determined that the appeal against conviction would not have any prospects of success. Furthermore, the court found that the interests of justice did not require the reinstatement of the abandoned appeal. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's application to reinstate her abandoned conviction appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Refuse the application.

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 Walker [2020] QCA 281
PARTIES:	R v WALKER, Amanda May (applicant)
FILE NOS:	CA No 316 of 2019 CA No 326 of 2018 SC No 1037 of 2017
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Reopening (Criminal)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 19 November 2018 (Lyons SJA)
DELIVERED ON:	11 December 2020
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 May 2020
JUDGES:	Sofronoff P and Fraser and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	Refuse the application.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – ABANDONMENT OF APPEAL – where, after a two week trial, the applicant was found guilty of five drug offences – where the applicant previously appealed against her convictions and also sought leave to appeal against her sentences – where at the hearing of her application for leave to appeal against sentence in 2019, the applicant’s counsel abandoned the appeal against conviction – where the applicant’s sentence application was refused – where the applicant now applies to reinstate her abandoned conviction appeal – where the applicant led evidence in support of her application – whether the appeal would have any prospects of success – whether the interests of justice make it necessary to reinstate the applicant’s conviction appeal Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 70(3) R v Basacar[2008] QCA 285, cited R v Marriner [2007] 1 Qd R 179; [2006] QCA 32, cited R v Walker[2019] QCA 199, related
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf G J Cummings for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent