Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
News ticker
  • Staff Applications: OPEN
  • Bans issued on or after 01 Oct 19 may only be appealed if made in error
  • Bug reports are to be lodged in game via /bugreport
  • IC - Applications for Honours & Awards are open
Sign in to follow this  
Sign in to follow this  
too_tall

Cunningham v The Queen

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

6Hg8kMs.png

 

Contact Details - Applicant/Plaintiff
First Name: Tyler
Last Name: Benson
Mobile: 904693
Discord: Too_Tall#6940

Contact Details - Client (If this application is submitted by a registered legal practitioner or on behalf of an organisation)
First Name: Colton
Last Name: Cunningham
Mobile: 710922
Discord: approxiess#7021

Organisation Name (If applicable): 

For Original Jurisdiction
Defendant Name: Commissioner of Police
Defendant Organisation (If available): San Andreas Police Force
Respondent Discord (if known): xx#0000

Statement of Claims:

[1] The appellate Mr Cunningham was charged with 1x Police Pursuit and 3 x Attempted Murder on Sun, 22 Aug 21 at 1800 hours AEST

[2] Mr Cunningham was on the crane platform at the San Andreas Construction Yard opposite PDM when he was arrested

[3] The arresting officer quote presumed unquote that Mr Cunningham was the individual in question

[4] Mr Cunningham at the time of his arrest wasn't wearing any clothing matching the description of the individual in question that the SAPF was after, the SAPF again quote presumed unquote Mr Cunningham was the individual as he had a bat on his back

[5] Mr Cunningham was in possession of a Class C firearm being a .50cal Deagle for which he was licensed to carry

[6] A Gunshot Residue Test was conducted, for which he came back positive. When questioned, Mr Cunningham stated that 'he had been to the firing range at Ammuniation prior to going to the Construction Yard to take photos of the Sunset, City Lights and Night Sky'

[7] SAPF stated that the individual didn't leave the area as they had Officer's posted at all exits. When this was tested, they could not give a definitive answer that they had eyes on all possible exits from the area. Meaning that the individual in question, may have slipped past the SAPF

[8] Mr Cunningham cannot be proven to of been the individual that the SAPF were chasing from the Alta St Train Station, or that he attempted to murder anyone as Mr Cunningham and the suspect in question don't match the descriptions

Hence the appellate seeks the following:

[1] All charges be removed from Mr Cunningham's record

[2] Mr Cunningham to be reimbursed for time served

Witnesses:
N/A

Evidence:
N/A

Acknowledgement: Failure to acknowledge the following will result in penalties
1. I acknowledge that under section 22 of the Crimes Act 2018 and section 8 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that it is an offence to provide falsified statements or evidence and may result in harsh penalty if convicted.
 Y
2. I acknowledge that under section 15 of the Judicial Procedures Act 2019 that there will be a fee associated with the court proceedings of this case, per person in each party. Y
3. I authorise the Government of San Andreas to deduct any fees set out in point 2 above from my bank account automatically. 
(Attach evidence of consent from additional applicants to this case). Y

Edited by too_tall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Hg8kMs.png

Cunningham v The Queen [2021] SADC 53


[1] The Court accepts the appellant's writ of appeal against conviction. As the appeal was lodged within five days of the original conviction, the appeal will be heard on a de novo basis, with the Crown bearing the burden of proof.

[2] The Court orders that the respondent in this matter be provided five days, effective from when they are given notice of these proceedings, to file an appearance/response to these proceedings. Failure to do so will result in the matter being heard without respondent, and may result in a decision in the favour of the appellant by default.

[3] The Court will contact that parties to give directions about how these proceedings will be conducted.

CASE TITLE: Cunningham v The Queen [2021] SADC 53

PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC

DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE

DATE: 30/08/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NOTICE OF MOTION
DEFAULT JUDGEMENT FOR FAILURE TO MAKE AN APPEARANCE

 

COURT DETAILS
Court:                   San Andreas District Court
Case:                   Cunningham v The Queen
Case Number:     SADC 53

PERSON/ORGANISATION AFFECT BY ORDERS SOUGHT
The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force [Defendant]

HEARING DETAILS
This motion is to be dealt with in the absence of the parties.

ORDERS SOUGHT
1. Judgement for the plaintiff against the defendant (The Commissioner of the San Andreas Police Force), totalling $280,000 ($10,000 for each day served in Prison, being 28 days)
2. The defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.

3. All charges pertaining to this matter be removed from Mr Cunningham's record.
4. The San Andreas Police Force enfore to all Officer's the importance of ensuring that the 10 points of prosecution are followed.

5. That the San andreas Police Force take Administrative action against the arressting Officer for failing to meet 10 points of prosecution resulting in Mr Cunningham being unlawful inprisoned because the arressting Officer 'presumed' Mr Cunningham was the individual in question.

AFFIDAVIT
NAME                  Tyler Benson
Address               N/A
Occupation          Lawyer & Flight Instructor
Date                    06 Sep 21

I say on oath:
1. I am the plaintiff.
2. The statement of claim was served to the defendant via direct correspondence through the appropriate chain of command on the 31 Aug 21.
3. The defendant has not responded to or contacted the plaintiff regarding this proceeding.
4. Hence, the defendant has not settled or attempted to settle with the plaintiff. 
         
Sworn by the deponent
Tyler Benson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6Hg8kMs.png

Cunningham v The Queen [2021] SADC 53


[1] The Court accepts the appellant's application for default judgement.

[2] Accordingly, the Court finds that the appellant's convictions were a consequence of an error of law, resulting in a substantial miscarriage of justice.

[3] As such, I make the following orders:

ORDERS

  1. The convictions of 1 x Police Pursuit, 3 x Attempted Murder be quashed, and a verdict of not guilty entered in their place.
  2. The respondent pay the defendant damages at a rate of $ 1000 per month for time served relating to these convictions.
  3. The respondent pay the defendant damages to total sum of fines paid, if paid at all, in relation to these convictions.
  4. The respondent pay the defendant's reasonable and correct legal costs.

CASE TITLE: Cunningham v The Queen [2021] SADC 53

PRESIDING: Harold J. Holt PSM QC

DIVISION: CRIMINAL APPELLATE

DATE: 15/09/2021 VENUE: VIRTUAL

Edited by Nukaa (Harold J. Holt)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.