Blake v Queensland Police Service - [2015] QDC 95

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Blake v Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 95

PARTIES:

TONY JAMES BLAKE
(Appellant)

v

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE
(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

2/15

DIVISION:

Appellate

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Magistrates Court at Rockhampton

DELIVERED ON:

30 March 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Rockhampton

HEARING DATE:

30 March 2015

JUDGE:

Burnett DCJ

ORDER:

1. The application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal be refused.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL – s 222 Justices Act 1886 – appeal against conviction – application for extension of time to file notice of appeal – where appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – where appellant entered a plea of guilty at first instance.

LEGISLATION:

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 222, 224.

CASES:

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132

R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

Solicitors for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

HIS HONOUR: This is an application brought by a Mr Blake who was convicted in the Rockhampton Magistrates Court on the 29th of November for, among other things, a number of driving offences in respect of which he was subject to a penalty of three years’ disqualification with six months’ imprisonment. The parole release date was set at the 21st of March 2014, and the applicant has now served that time. However, he is still subject to the suspension order, and it is that order that he now appeals against.

On the day in question, it appears he appeared by a solicitor. In a letter written the 2nd of December 2013, his solicitor wrote confirming the fact that, on that day, he pleaded guilty to the various offences, including unlicensed driving, unregistered driving, and uninsured driving, that he pleaded guilty, and he was sentenced to six months’ jail, and his driver’s licence was suspended for three years, and he was also fined $616. There were a number of other sentences of imprisonment imposed, and he was informed that in respect of the period of imprisonment for the driving offence, together with the other offences, he would serve his time in respect of the driving offence concurrently with the head sentence of 12 months related to other offences. It is noted that time would have been allowed on account of time served to that point. Importantly, the letter proceeds to inform him in these terms:

“You have a right to appeal against your sentence. Your solicitor has considered your sentence and does not recommend you appeal. To appeal against your sentence, you must lodge a notice of appeal in the District Court by 29 December 2013. You may also lodge the notice with the jail’s general manager. If you have any questions about your sentence or your right of appeal, please phone me on [stated phone number].”

The applicant did nothing, at least until he filed this application on the 9th of January 2015, that is, well over 12 months after the appeal date…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Blake v Queensland Police Service and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] QDC 95
Decision Date: 30 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Blake v Queensland Police Service involved an appeal against a conviction. The appellant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against the conviction, which was opposed by the respondent. The application was heard in the relevant appellate court, which had to determine whether the appellant's application for an extension of time should be granted. The appellant had entered a plea of guilty at the first instance but now sought to appeal the conviction.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal should be granted, despite the appellant having entered a plea of guilty at the first instance and the appeal lacking reasonable prospects of success. The court had to consider the relevant statutory provisions, particularly section 222 of the Justices Act 1886, and any relevant case law or principles that might guide its decision. The court also had to assess the merits of the appeal itself to determine whether there were any grounds that could potentially succeed.

The court found that the appellant's application for an extension of time should be refused. The court held that an appeal against a conviction after a plea of guilty is an unusual circumstance, and the appellant had not provided a compelling reason for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. Furthermore, the court determined that the appeal itself lacked reasonable prospects of success, as the evidence against the appellant was strong, and there were no arguable grounds for appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time, and the appeal was not proceeded with.

The court's final order was that the application for an extension of time for filing a notice of appeal be refused. This decision upheld the importance of timely filings in the appeal process and reinforced the principle that appeals after a plea of guilty are generally not entertained unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Blake v Queensland Police Service [2015] QDC 95
PARTIES:	TONY JAMES BLAKE (Appellant) v QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	2/15
DIVISION:	Appellate
PROCEEDING:	Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Magistrates Court at Rockhampton
DELIVERED ON:	30 March 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Rockhampton
HEARING DATE:	30 March 2015
JUDGE:	Burnett DCJ
ORDER:	1. The application for extension of time for filing a notice of appeal be refused.
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL – s 222 Justices Act 1886 – appeal against conviction – application for extension of time to file notice of appeal – where appeal has no reasonable prospects of success – where appellant entered a plea of guilty at first instance.
LEGISLATION:	Justices Act 1886 (Qld), ss 222, 224.
CASES:	Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132 R v Carkeet [2008] QCA 143
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Solicitors for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent