R v R
[2009] QCA 4
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 R[2009] QCA 4
- Add to List
R v R[2009] QCA 4
R v R[2009] QCA 4
COURT OF APPEAL
KEANE JA
HOLMES JA
FRASER JA
CA No 225 of 2008
DC No 366 of 2008
THE QUEEN
v
R(Applicant)
BRISBANE
DATE 09/02/2009
JUDGMENT
KEANE JA: On the 24th of February 2003 the applicant was convicted on the verdict of a jury of two counts of indecent dealing with a girl under the age of 12 years and two counts of rape. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of 10 years' imprisonment on each of the rape counts and to lesser concurrent terms of imprisonment in respect of the other offences.
The applicant appealed to this Court against his convictions. On 11 July 2003 that appeal was dismissed although his sentence was reduced to eight and a half years' imprisonment; see R v R (2003) 139 A Crim R 371; [2003] QCA 285.
A subsequent application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia was unsuccessful. The applicant now seeks an extension of time within which to bring a further appeal to this Court.
It is well established that this Court's jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against conviction is conferred by s 668(d) of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). That jurisdiction is exhausted once that right has been exercised. The line of authorities which establish this proposition was recently referred to in this Court's decision in R v Nudd [2007] QCA 40.
The applicant now wishes to agitate a point not previously taken on his part but that circumstance does not affect the position that this Court's jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against his conviction has been exhausted.
Top put the point shortly, this Court dealt with the applicant's appeal more than five years ago and its function in that regard has been performed. Since this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal against the applicant's convictions the grant of an extension of time to enable an appeal to proceed would be futile.
In my opinion, the application for an extension of time should be refused.
HOLMES JA: I agree.
FRASER JA: I agree.
KEANE JA: The order of the Court is application for an extension of time is refused.