R v Renton
[2001] QCA 403
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v Renton[2001] QCA 403
- Add to List
R v Renton[2001] QCA 403
R v Renton[2001] QCA 403
COURT OF APPEAL
WILLIAMS JA
CHESTERMAN J
MULLINS J
CA No 227 of 2001
THE QUEEN
v.
ELWYN STUART RENTON
BRISBANE
DATE 25/09/2001
JUDGMENT
WILLIAMS JA: Elwyn Stuart Renton was arrested pursuant to a bench warrant issued out of the District Court at Rockhampton. He was immediately after his arrest taken before Judge O'Brien sitting in the District Court Brisbane. The matter was adjourned to Rockhampton and the applicant was granted bail.
Subsequent to that the applicant filed in this Court what purports to be a notice of appeal contending that the bench warrant was, to use the words on the notice of appeal, "made out mistakenly". It then is asserted that the bench warrant is invalid.
This is not an appeal to this Court from a conviction pursuant to section 668 of the Criminal Code and in The Queen v. Lowrie [1998] 2 Queensland Reports 579, Justices Davies and Pincus held that there is no right of appeal to this Court from an interlocutory order in criminal proceedings. That decision was confirmed by the majority in the recent decision of re Robert Paul Long [2001] QCA 318.
It appears that the appellant has not received notice of today's hearing because he has left the address that he gave to this Court as his address for service; that also happens to be his residential address for purposes of the bail order.
He was initially notified by the Registry that there were jurisdictional problems. The matter was listed for hearing before the Court so that the matter could be brought to a head.
In the circumstances it is clear that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the notice of appeal and in the circumstances it should be struck out.
CHESTERMAN J: I agree. It is unusual that a Court would dismiss an application in the absence of the applicant when it was the Court itself which set the application down for hearing and the applicant is unaware of the event, but the applicant's only point is that the warrant for his arrest should not have issued.
The only consequence of the warrant was that he was brought before the Court and then given bail. There is no possible prejudice to the applicant by the application being dismissed and I agree with the order proposed.
MULLINS J: I also agree with the order proposed and the reasons for that order.
WILLIAMS JA: The order will be as I have indicated; the appeal is struck out.