Wilson v Raddatz

Case [2006] QCA 392


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  Wilson v Raddatz [2006] QCA 392
PARTIES:  WILSON, Gregory
(applicant)
v
RADDATZ, Warren Neil
(respondent)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 276 of 2006
DC No 5 of 2004
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Application for Extension of Time s 118 DCA (Criminal)
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 
District Court at Maryborough
DELIVERED EX 
TEMPORE ON:  10 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  10 October 2006
JUDGES:  McMurdo P, Williams and Holmes JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court,
each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:  Application for extension of time in which to apply for
leave to appeal refused with costs

CATCHWORDS: 

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where applicant was found guilty in Magistrates Court of clearing native vegetation on his freehold land without a permit – where applicant appealed to District Court but his appeal was dismissed with costs – where applicant applied for leave to appeal from District Court order but his application was out of time – where applicant now seeks an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal under s 118 District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld) – where applicant has given no satisfactory explanation for why he did not file his application for leave to appeal within the required time – whether the judgment sought to be appealed from was plainly wrong – whether the interests of justice support the extension of time sought – whether applicant would have any prospects of success in his application for leave to appeal

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118
Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld), s 4.3.1, s 4.3.18
Bone v Mothershaw [2002] QCA 120; CA No 294 of 2001,

12 April 2002, applied

Burns v State of Qld & Anor [2006] QCA 235; Appeal No

526 of 2006, 23 June 2006, applied

COUNSEL:  The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D J Grealy for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Department of Natural Resources and Water (Queensland)

complaint with a breach of s 4.3.1(1) Integrated Planning Act
1997 (Qld) ("the IPA") that between 1 January 2002 and 30 July
2003 at North Aramara he started an assessable development,
namely clearing of native vegetation on freehold land without
a development permit for the development. He pleaded not
guilty in the Magistrates Court at Maryborough on 1 February
2004. His case was heard in that court on 1 June 2004. On 3
August 2004 the Magistrate found him guilty, did not record a
conviction, fined him $7,500 and ordered him to pay $62.25
costs of court, in default of payment six months imprisonment.
He also ordered him to pay $10,265.33 costs of investigation
and prosecution, in default of payment levy to be made by
execution against his goods and chattels. Mr Wilson was given
six months in which to pay…

Continue reading Wilson v Raddatz

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wilson v Raddatz [2006] QCA 392
Case
[2006] QCA 392
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wilson v Raddatz, the applicant, Wilson, was found guilty by the Magistrates Court for clearing native vegetation on his freehold land without a permit. Wilson appealed to the District Court against his conviction and sentence, but his appeal was dismissed with costs. He then sought an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from the District Court order, which was refused. The primary legal issue for the court was whether Wilson's application for leave to appeal was out of time, and if not, whether the interests of justice supported extending the time limit for such an application. The court also had to determine whether the judgment sought to be appealed from was plainly wrong and if Wilson had any prospects of success in his application for leave to appeal.

The court considered that Wilson had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his failure to file his application for leave to appeal within the required time. It was noted that the application was significantly late, and no exceptional circumstances were presented to justify the delay. The court further found that the judgment of the District Court was not plainly wrong, and Wilson did not have any prospects of success in his application for leave to appeal. Consequently, the court refused Wilson's application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal and ordered that he pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for extension of time in which to apply for

leave to appeal refused with costs

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.