WHARTON -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 176 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACR:76/2014 | 17 AUGUST 2015 | |
| Coram: | McLURE P MAZZA JA BEECH J | 2/09/15 | |
| 19 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WHARTON -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176 CORAM : McLURE P
- MAZZA JA
BEECH J
- CACR 77 of 2014
- Appellant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : STONE DCJ
File No : IND 435 of 2013
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Appeals - Appellant failed to file appellant's case - Springing order - Extension of time for compliance - Whether further extension of time should be granted - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20(1)(b)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), pt 3
Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.1(3)
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 3 r 5
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 3(1), r 4(1), r 5, r 28, r 32, r 43
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Mr L Glenn
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
CVW Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Addison [2011] WASC 267
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Southern Cross Exploration…
Continue reading Wharton v The Queen [No 2]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Wharton v The Queen [No 2] [2015] WASCA 176
- Case
- [2015] WASCA 176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Wharton v The Queen [No 2] involved the appellant, Wharton, who had previously been convicted of criminal offences and was appealing against that conviction. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the appellant was entitled to an extension of time to file his case, given that he had failed to do so within the required timeframe. The application for an extension came before the court after the appellant had already been granted a previous extension of time.
The court was required to determine whether a further extension of time should be granted to the appellant, given the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the appellant had previously been granted an extension of time, but had failed to comply with that order. The court was required to consider whether it was appropriate to grant a further extension of time, given the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders. The court also had to consider the principles of finality and the importance of timeliness in legal proceedings.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders, as well as the principle of finality in legal proceedings. The court noted that the appellant had already been granted one extension of time, and that this was a significant indulgence. The court was not persuaded that the appellant's reasons for the delay were sufficient to warrant a further extension of time. The court held that the application for a further extension of time should be dismissed, and that the appellant's appeal would be determined on the basis of the material that had been filed up until that point. The court's decision was based on the principle that legal proceedings must be conducted in a timely manner, and that the court should not be seen to be condoning delay.
The court was required to determine whether a further extension of time should be granted to the appellant, given the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the appellant had previously been granted an extension of time, but had failed to comply with that order. The court was required to consider whether it was appropriate to grant a further extension of time, given the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders. The court also had to consider the principles of finality and the importance of timeliness in legal proceedings.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the appellant's history of non-compliance with court orders, as well as the principle of finality in legal proceedings. The court noted that the appellant had already been granted one extension of time, and that this was a significant indulgence. The court was not persuaded that the appellant's reasons for the delay were sufficient to warrant a further extension of time. The court held that the application for a further extension of time should be dismissed, and that the appellant's appeal would be determined on the basis of the material that had been filed up until that point. The court's decision was based on the principle that legal proceedings must be conducted in a timely manner, and that the court should not be seen to be condoning delay.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application dismissed
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.