R v Williams - [2016] QCA 204

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williams [2016] QCA 204

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMS, Darren James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 95 of 2016
SC No 151 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – (Criminal)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 6 August 2014

DELIVERED ON:

19 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Refuse the application to reinstate the appeal against conviction.

2. Refuse the application to appeal against sentence.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – ABANDONMENT OF APPEAL – where on 6 August 2014 the applicant was convicted by a jury of the attempted murder of his estranged wife – where on 15 August 2014 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence – where on 23 February 2015 the applicant filed a Notice of Abandonment in respect of the appeal against conviction – where the applicant seeks leave to reinstate his appeal against conviction pursuant to r 70 of the Criminal Practice Rules 1999 – whether it is in the interests of justice to reinstate the appeal against conviction

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment for one count of attempted murder and seven years imprisonment for one count of burglary – where a previous application for leave to appeal against the subject sentences was refused – where the applicant has not adduced any further or additional grounds in support of his application – whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal on the subsequent application which is, in any event, an abuse of process

Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 70

Lowe v R [2015] NSWCCA 46, cited
Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9, cited
R v Basacar [2008] QCA 285, cited
R v Marriner [2007] 1 Qd R 179; [2006] QCA 32, cited
R v O’Hara[2015] QCA 283, cited
R v Upson (No 2) (2013) 229 A Crim R 275; [2013] QCA 149, applied
R v Williams [2015] QCA 276, cited
Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
V A Loury for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philip McMurdo JA and the orders proposed by his Honour.
GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Philip McMurdo JA and with the reasons given by his Honour.
PHILIP McMURDO JA: On 6 August…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2016] QCA 204
Case: [2016] QCA 204
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Williams concerns a conviction for attempted murder and burglary, with the applicant appealing both conviction and sentence. The applicant was convicted on 6 August 2014 for the attempted murder of his estranged wife and burglary. On 15 August 2014, the applicant filed a notice of appeal against both the conviction and the sentence. However, on 23 February 2015, the applicant filed a Notice of Abandonment in respect of the appeal against conviction. The applicant subsequently sought leave to reinstate the appeal against conviction and to appeal against sentence, citing the interests of justice and alleging new grounds for appeal.

The central legal issues before the court were whether it was in the interests of justice to reinstate the appeal against conviction and whether the court had jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal on the subsequent application. Additionally, the court had to determine if the subsequent application was an abuse of process. The court had to weigh the applicant's reasons for abandoning the appeal against the principles of finality in legal proceedings and the overarching interests of justice.

In its reasoning, the court found that there was no valid reason provided by the applicant for abandoning the appeal against conviction. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any new or additional grounds that warranted reconsideration of the appeal. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had already been granted and subsequently abandoned an opportunity to appeal, which underscored the principle of finality in legal proceedings. The court concluded that allowing the reinstatement of the appeal would not be in the interests of justice and that the subsequent application was an abuse of process. Consequently, the court refused both applications.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the application to reinstate the appeal against conviction and to refuse the application to appeal against sentence. The court's decision emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need to prevent abuse of process.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Refuse the application to reinstate the appeal against conviction.

2. Refuse the application to appeal against sentence.

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 Williams [2016] QCA 204
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMS, Darren James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 95 of 2016 SC No 151 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – (Criminal) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Toowoomba – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 6 August 2014
DELIVERED ON:	19 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 June 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Philip McMurdo JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Refuse the application to reinstate the appeal against conviction. 2. Refuse the application to appeal against sentence.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – ABANDONMENT OF APPEAL – where on 6 August 2014 the applicant was convicted by a jury of the attempted murder of his estranged wife – where on 15 August 2014 the applicant filed a notice of appeal against conviction and application for leave to appeal against sentence – where on 23 February 2015 the applicant filed a Notice of Abandonment in respect of the appeal against conviction – where the applicant seeks leave to reinstate his appeal against conviction pursuant to r 70 of the Criminal Practice Rules 1999 – whether it is in the interests of justice to reinstate the appeal against conviction CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – OTHER MATTERS – where the applicant was sentenced to concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment for one count of attempted murder and seven years imprisonment for one count of burglary – where a previous application for leave to appeal against the subject sentences was refused – where the applicant has not adduced any further or additional grounds in support of his application – whether the court has jurisdiction to grant leave to appeal on the subsequent application which is, in any event, an abuse of process Criminal Practice Rules 1999 (Qld), r 70 Lowe v R [2015] NSWCCA 46, cited Nudd v The Queen (2006) 80 ALJR 614; [2006] HCA 9, cited R v Basacar [2008] QCA 285, cited R v Marriner [2007] 1 Qd R 179; [2006] QCA 32, cited R v O’Hara[2015] QCA 283, cited R v Upson (No 2) (2013) 229 A Crim R 275; [2013] QCA 149, applied R v Williams [2015] QCA 276, cited Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378; [1993] HCA 77, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent