R v Reeves
[2003] QCA 222
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 Reeves[2003] QCA 222
- Add to List
R v Reeves[2003] QCA 222
R v Reeves[2003] QCA 222
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Conviction) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX | 2 June 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 2 June 2003 |
JUDGES: | McMurdo P, Davies JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made |
ORDER: | Application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - TIME FOR APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME - WHEN REFUSED - where applicant convicted of attempted murder - where application for leave to appeal made outside limitation period - where application made after previous dismissal of appeal against conviction - whether court has jurisdiction to hear a second appeal R v Alexanderson, MacQueen, Barlow and Farr [2001] QCA 400; CA Nos 155, 156, 196 and 197 of 2001, applied R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 QdR 601, distinguished |
COUNSEL: | Applicant appeared on his own behalf via telephone link |
SOLICITORS: | Applicant appeared on his own behalf via telephone link |
DAVIES J: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against a conviction of attempted murder on 28 September 2000. The application was filed on 24 January 2003.
The applicant's explanation for the delay is that, in his own words, it has taken him two years to put this matter together. I would, myself, doubt whether that is a satisfactory explanation for the delay. But it is unnecessary, in my view, to decide that question.
More importantly, the application is one made after the dismissal of an appeal against his conviction. The applicant previously appealed against the conviction and that appeal was dismissed on its merits by this Court on 13 March 2001.
The substance of the matters, which the applicant would now wish to raise by way of appeal, were covered by the grounds of appeal against his original conviction. But on the hearing of the appeal against his conviction, his counsel did not pursue those grounds. He pursued only one ground of appeal and did not pursue the two grounds which form the substance of the applicant's application today.
This Court has held now on many occasions that where an appeal against conviction has been dismissed on its merits, this Court has no jurisdiction to hear a further appeal. It is sufficient to refer only to one case, R v Alexanderson, MacQueen, Barlow and Farr, [2001] QCA 400, CA Nos 155, 156, 196 and 197 of 2001, which sets out the principles and the cases which preceded it. That case has been followed in turn in this Court on many occasions since.
This is not one of those limited cases which would come within the principles stated by this Court in R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 QdR 601. It is self-evident that it does not.
It follows, in my opinion, that the application must be dismissed.
THE PRESIDENT: I agree.
ATKINSON J: The applicant has said that in this case he seeks his application for extension of time to appeal be dismissed, and rather applies for a reopening of his appeal. This is a distinction without any substance. Essentially what he is asking is for a second chance to appeal, and for the reasons given by Justice Davies this is not an appropriate case in which that should happen.
THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application is dismissed.