Marsden v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 229

Marsden v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 229

Each proposed appeal lacked merit. The sentencing judge had adequate material about Mr Marsden's rehabilitation prospects, there was no justifiable parity grievance given the applicants' different subjective features and backdating of sentences, and Mr Hawkins' complaint about police delay disclosed no sentencing error or principle of leniency. Because refusal of leave would not produce a miscarriage of justice, no special reasons justified extending time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Applications for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal Against Sentence / Full Court Decision on Applications for Extension of Time
Outcome
Each application for an extension of time within which to appeal was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'special Reasons' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'rehabilitation' 'parity' 'non Parole Period']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'special Reasons' 'miscarriage of Justice' 'rehabilitation' 'parity' 'non Parole Period']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Applications for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal Against Sentence / Full Court Decision on Applications for Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there were special reasons under Federal Court Rules, Order 52 r15 to extend time to file and serve notices of appeal against sentence.' 'Whether the proposed sentence appeals had sufficient merit to justify an extension of time.' "Whether Mr Marsden's solicitor failed to present matters relevant to rehabilitation adequately before the sentencing judge." 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to apply parity properly between Mr Marsden and Mr Hawkins.' 'Whether Mr Hawkins should have received a reduced non-parole period because police delay in charging earlier offences allegedly allowed later offending to occur.']

Ratio Decidendi

Each proposed appeal lacked merit. The sentencing judge had adequate material about Mr Marsden's rehabilitation prospects, there was no justifiable parity grievance given the applicants' different subjective features and backdating of sentences, and Mr Hawkins' complaint about police delay disclosed no sentencing error or principle of leniency. Because refusal of leave would not produce a miscarriage of justice, no special reasons justified extending time.

Court Disposition

Each application for an extension of time within which to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Each application for an extension of time within which to appeal is dismissed.']