SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION: R v Williams [2000] QCA 192 PARTIES: R
v
WILLIAMS, Craig James
(applicant)FILE NO/S: CA No 77 of 2000
DC No 637 of 1998DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Application for Extension (Conviction) ORIGINATING COURT: District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON: 26 May 2000 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 23 May 2000 JUDGES: McMurdo P, Pincus JA, Muir J
Judgment of the CourtORDER: The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is granted. The time within which to file the appeal is extended to 29 March 2000. CATCHWORDS: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME COUNSEL: R A East for the applicant
L J Clare for the respondentSOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Details
- AGLC
- R v Williams [2000] QCA 192
- Case
- [2000] QCA 192
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Williams, has applied to the court for an extension of time to lodge his notice of appeal against his conviction and sentence. The appeal concerns the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction of assault occasioning bodily harm, and the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Williams' application for an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The court considered the circumstances of the delay in lodging the appeal and whether there was any justification for the delay. The court also considered whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the respondent.
The court found that there were mitigating circumstances that justified the delay in lodging the appeal. The court accepted that Williams had acted promptly in seeking legal advice and that there were no intentional or negligent delays on his part. The court also found that the respondent had not been prejudiced by the delay. The court therefore granted the application for an extension of time and extended the time within which to file the appeal to 29 March 2000.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether Williams' application for an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The court considered the circumstances of the delay in lodging the appeal and whether there was any justification for the delay. The court also considered whether the delay had caused any prejudice to the respondent.
The court found that there were mitigating circumstances that justified the delay in lodging the appeal. The court accepted that Williams had acted promptly in seeking legal advice and that there were no intentional or negligent delays on his part. The court also found that the respondent had not been prejudiced by the delay. The court therefore granted the application for an extension of time and extended the time within which to file the appeal to 29 March 2000.
Orders
Orders of the court
The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is granted. The time within which to file the appeal is extended to 29 March 2000.
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.