R v Woodman

Case [2010] QCA 162

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Woodman [2010] QCA 162

PARTIES:

R
v
WOODMAN, Daniel Thomas
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 35 of 2010
DC No 150 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Mt Isa

DELIVERED ON:

25 June 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 May 2010

JUDGES:

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

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – POWERS OF COURT ON APPEAL – GENERALLY – where applicant sought extension of time in which to appeal against sentence  - where applicant had previously appealed – where previous appeal dismissed – whether court has jurisdiction to entertain second appeal on the merits

Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld), s 58(1)
Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 8(1)

Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HCA 45, applied
R v AP [2003] QCA 445, followed
R v Alexanderson & Ors [2001] QCA 400, cited
R v Ali [2003] QCA 117, cited
R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 401, cited
R v Hedland [2003] QCA 210, cited
R v Lowrie [1998] 2 Qd R 579, followed
R v Lumley [2008] QCA 155, cited
R v Lund [2001] QCA 156, cited
R v McGrady [2001] QCA 506, cited
R v Reeves [2003] QCA 222, cited
R v Regazzoli [2001] QCA 482, cited
R v Riley [2010] QCA 91, followed
R v Salles [2003] QCA 127, cited
R v Smith [1968] QWN 50, followed
R v Smith (No 2) [1969] QWN 10, followed
R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197, related

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf via video link
MB Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf via video link
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent

  1. McMURDO P: The application to extend time should be refused for the reasons given by White JA.

  1. FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of White JA.  I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed by her Honour.

  1. WHITE JA: The applicant, who appeared for himself by video link from Townsville, seeks an extension of time[1] in which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.  Although he has ticked both the sentence and conviction boxes on the form and some of the submissions seem to be directed, indiscriminately, at the conduct of a trial which was never held, the applicant confirmed that he seeks an extension of time in respect of his sentence only.

    [1]Filed 3 March 2010.

  1. On 8 December 2008 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Mt Isa before Judge Dearden to one count of grievous bodily harm with intent in relation to serious burn injuries inflicted upon his…

Continue reading R v Woodman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Woodman [2010] QCA 162
Case
[2010] QCA 162
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Woodman was heard by the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Woodman, sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence. Woodman had previously appealed against his conviction and sentence, but the appeal was dismissed. The central issue in this case was whether the court had the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the merits, particularly considering the previous dismissal of Woodman's appeal. The High Court was required to determine whether the powers of the court on appeal could be exercised in such a scenario and whether any exceptional circumstances existed to warrant a second appeal.

The court considered the statutory framework governing appeals and the general principles concerning the jurisdiction of courts to hear appeals. It noted that the general rule is that an appeal against a sentence cannot be entertained without leave of the court, and previous dismissal of an appeal does not automatically grant leave for a subsequent appeal. The court found that there were no exceptional circumstances present in this case to justify a second appeal on the merits. The court concluded that its powers on appeal were limited and that the applicant's previous appeal had already been heard and dismissed. Therefore, the court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a second appeal on the merits.

In light of its findings, the High Court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal against the sentence. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to the statutory framework and the general principles governing appeals. The court's decision was based on the absence of exceptional circumstances and the finality of the previous appeal. The court's reasoning underscores the need for applicants to carefully consider the grounds for appeal and the likelihood of success before seeking further judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

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.