Hennington v Horrocks
[2011] QDC 88
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
- Hennington v Horrocks[2011] QDC 88
- Add to List
Hennington v Horrocks[2011] QDC 88
Hennington v Horrocks[2011] QDC 88
DISTRICT COURT | [2011] QDC 88 |
CIVIL JURISDICTION | |
JUDGE ROBIN QC | |
No 2887 of 2010 | |
SIMONE HENNINGTON | Appellant |
and | |
JAMES ROBERT HORROCKS | Respondent |
BRISBANE | |
..DATE 17/05/2011 | |
ORDER | |
CATCHWORDS | |
Justices Act 1886 s 222 |
Appeal against sentence in which appellant has failed to provide the outline of argument required by the Practice Direction - she has been released on parole and her full-time release date is imminent - appeal set down for hearing - respondent may seek to have it struck out on the day fixed
HIS HONOUR: Those orders are made in circumstances where the appellant's inaction is understandable. Her appeal is against a sentence of nine months imprisonment which was ameliorated by a fixed parole release date of 10th of January 2011. There may not be a lot to be gained from the appeal now. The full-time release date will be 9th of June 2011.
The appellant, who had assistance of legal practitioners including the Legal Aid office has not been able to obtain legal aid.
She has not responded to communications from the Registrar calculated to encourage her to file the outline of argument required by the practice direction.
The lawyers assisting her in the past obtained limited extensions of time in that regard but she has not made any renewed application.
The appropriate way to have this appeal disposed of is to set it down for hearing. It may well be that the respondent files an application to have it struck out for want of prosecution which is, effectively, the procedure that the Court of Appeal confirmed in Gamble v Davidson [2000] 1 Qd R 510 is required for appeals under section 222 of the Justices Act 1886.