R v Lumley
[2003] QCA 351
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 - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- R v Lumley[2003] QCA 351
- Add to List
R v Lumley[2003] QCA 351
R v Lumley[2003] QCA 351
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | DC No 324 of 2002 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Conviction) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 12 August 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 12 August 2003 |
JUDGES: | Williams and Jerrard JJA and Muir J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made |
ORDERS: | 1. Application for extension of time within which to appeal granted |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – where notice of appeal against conviction filed out of time – where applicant had given instructions to legal representatives to appeal – where no fault of applicant that notice was filed out of time – whether the court should review the conviction on its merits |
COUNSEL: | A J Rafter with A J Donaldson for the applicant C W Heaton for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | Russo Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
WILLIAMS JA: On or about the 4th of March 2003 the applicant was convicted of the offences of rape and torture. He was not sentenced until the 4th of April 2003.
A notice of appeal against conviction and notice of an application for leave to appeal against sentence was filed on the 28th of April 2003. That notice was within time so far as sentence was concerned, but was out of time so far as the appeal against conviction was concerned. An amended notice was filed on the 15th of July 2003.
It appears that at all times the applicant had given instructions to his then legal representatives to appeal and it was through no fault of his that the notice was initially filed out of time.
In the circumstances the Crown accepts the explanation given for the failure and concedes that it is an appropriate case in which the Court should review the conviction on the merits.
In the circumstances there will be an order extending the time for filing a notice of appeal until the 15th of July 2003.
JERRARD JA: I agree.
MUIR J: I agree.