Bonello v The Medical Board of South Australia
[2010] SASC 253
•20 August 2010
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Miscellaneous Appeal)
BONELLO v THE MEDICAL BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2010] SASC 253
Judgment of The Honourable Justice Anderson
20 August 2010
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES - HEALTH CARE PROFESSIONALS - MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS - LICENCES AND REGISTRATION - APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS FOR ORDER DIRECTING REGISTRATION
Applicant seeks an extension of time in which to appeal against decision of respondent - applicant's registration to practise medicine suspended due to failure to comply with order of the Board - decision made under the repealed Medical Practitioners Act 1983.
MAGISTRATES - APPEALS AND REVIEW - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT - PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE - TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION OF
Application five years out of time - whether just and reasonable to grant applicant extension of time in which to appeal - whether extension of time warranted on the merits.
Held: The applicant has not shown sufficient justification or merit in the proposed appeal which would warrant granting an extension of time.
Application for extension of time is refused.
Medical Practitioners Act 1983 (SA) s 34, s 51, s 51(e), s 53, s 53(1), s 53(2), s 57(2), s 58, s 66 and s 66(2); Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA); Controlled Substances (General) Regulations 2000 (SA) Part 2, referred to.
R v Trotter (1979) 22 SASR 64, applied.
BONELLO v THE MEDICAL BOARD OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
[2010] SASC 253Miscellaneous Appeal
ANDERSON J.
Introduction
This is an application for an extension of time in which to appeal a decision made by the respondent on 17 February 2005 to suspend the applicant’s registration to practise as a medical practitioner in South Australia.
The application is brought pursuant to s 66 of the repealed Medical Practitioners Act 1983 (SA) (“the Act”). As the Act was repealed on 26 August 2005, the legislation which governs this appeal is the repealed Act. Section 66(2) states:
(2)An appeal must be instituted within sixty days of the date of the decision appealed against, but the Supreme Court may, if it is satisfied that it is just and reasonable in the circumstances to do so, dispense with the requirement that the appeal should be instituted within that time.
The applicant could, under s 34 of the Act, make application to The Medical Board of South Australia (the Board) for reinstatement once his period of suspension expires. Under the new Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (South Australia) Act 2010 (SA), the Board has been replaced with the Australian Health Practitioners Regulatory Agency (AHPRA). However, Mr Bonello chooses to seek to appeal to this Court.
Under s 66(2) of the Act, the applicant was required to file any notice of appeal to this Court sixty days from the date of the decision of the Board. That means his time expired on 18 April 2005, over five years ago.
Background facts to Board inquiry
As there is a lengthy history of inquiry relating to the applicant by the Board, I will outline the facts in chronological order.
According to the report of Dr Karl Jansen dated 6 November 2001, exhibit A to the applicant’s affidavit FDN 6 filed 2 August 2010, the Board commenced investigating the applicant in May 1999 after receiving a complaint. The investigation was referred to the South Australian Police. No charges were laid at that time.
On 23 October 2001, the applicant was treated for an overdose of the drug ketamine at the Royal Adelaide Hospital (RAH). Exhibit CSJ 1 to the affidavit of Claire Jarrett dated 8 July 2010 (CSJ 1) contains two pages of notes of the ambulance officer who spoke to the applicant on that occasion. The notes describe a conversation where the applicant talked about attempting to end his life. According to the report of Dr Jansen, the applicant was taken to casualty at the RAH by the ambulance officers and then hospitalised in the Adelaide Clinic in Gilberton.
Ketamine is described in the report to the Controlled Substances Advisory Council (see page 13 of CSJ 1) thus “Ketamine hydrochloride is marketed as a short-acting dissociative anaesthetic agent that has the ability to separate perception from sensation and is currently a schedule 4 poison in South Australia as are other anaesthetic agents such as halothane, thiopentone, isofluorane and nitrous oxide … Ketamine, a NMDA-receptor agonist, is used in both the medical and veterinary professions, but primarily as a veterinary anaesthetic agent … Illicit “street” ketamine known as “Special K”, “Super K”, “Cat Valium”, “Horse Tranquiliser”, “Kit Kat”, “ket” and “Vitamin K” has become a desirable psychotropic drug used on the “party drug” scene (at nightclubs, dance parties and “raves”) in many parts of the world including Australia”.
Since that report was written, ketamine has been classified as a Part 2 drug of dependence in the Controlled Substances (General) Regulations 2000 (SA).
Following the overdose incident, a complaint was made by then Registrar of the Board before the Board on 15 November 2001 under s 51 of the Act.
Section 51 of the Act gave the Board the power, on application of the Registrar, to suspend a practitioner’s registration or impose conditions restricting the right to practise, where the Board was satisfied that the ability of the practitioner was impaired by mental or physical incapacity to such an extent that it was desirable to make such an order in the public interest.
The Board made an order pursuant to s 51(e) of the Act suspending the applicant’s registration until he recovered from his incapacity.
The applicant appealed that Board suspension to the Supreme Court. The appeal was conceded by the Board and an agreement was reached between the parties which permitted the applicant to practise subject to certain conditions.
By Supreme Court order dated 15 January 2002, the applicant’s registration was reinstated subject to conditions including that he not have in his possession any ketamine, or administer, use, or prescribe ketamine, and that he was only to practise medicine from the Evandale Clinic. The applicant was also ordered to consult with a psychiatrist, Dr Milton Bowman.
Subsequent to that order, Mr Joseph Neal Hooper, then Registrar of the Board, became aware of breaches of the order and other matters concerning the applicant, including the use of the drug ketamine.
Those breaches are set out in the reasons for decision of the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal dated 19 December 2005 (page 82 of exhibit CSJ 2 to the affidavit of Claire Jarrett dated 8 July 2010). They included that the applicant was found in possession of ketamine at his home address, and that on a number of occasions the applicant had prescribed Ketalar (active ingredient ketamine), for human use and in some cases for himself.
CSJ 1 contains an affidavit of Matthew Jenkins, pharmacist at Amcal Pharmacy Marden, and an affidavit of Jessica Pollice, dispensing assistant, describing times when Ketalar has been dispensed to the applicant or his assistant. There are also photocopies of prescriptions for Ketalar issued by the applicant.
On 17 June 2004, the Board made a complaint under s 58 of the Act to the Medical Practitioners Professional Conduct Tribunal of unprofessional conduct based on the breaches by the applicant of the Supreme Court order.
On 3 December 2004, Detective Mark Boileau attended at the applicant’s home address at the request of Mr Geoff Anderson, a member of the Department of Health who had attended at the applicant’s surgery and home address the day before. Mr Anderson was concerned that there was no answer at either the surgery or the home address.
Detective Boileau spoke to the applicant on that date, and made a number of observations regarding the applicant’s appearance and the state of his home. In an affidavit dated 13 January 2004 (in CSJ 1), Detective Boileau stated that the applicant’s premises was “unkept” with the front screen door wide open and keys in the lock. He stated that the inside of the house was “unkept and dirty” with “belongings strewn about the floors of the house”. He stated that the applicant was “dressed in a pair of purple boxer shorts with a split in the material at the rear. He looked thin and grey in colour. His hair was ruffled. He appeared sad, morose and listless”. He arranged to meet the applicant on 22 December 2004 at his surgery. The Board arranged for government investigator Mr Allen Arthur to attend at the same time.
When Mr Arthur attended on 22 December 2004, he observed that the surgery had a notice of closure on the front door and that the applicant’s speech was “slurred” and “barely understandable” (see affidavit dated 19 January 2005 in CSJ 1). The applicant told Mr Arthur on this occasion that he would be leaving the country in the next day or so and that he did not trust his lawyers
From November 2004 to January 2005, a number of complaints against the applicant were made to the Board. Evidence of these appears in CSJ 1. These complaints relate to patients of Mr Bonello being unable to contact him for retrieval of their patient records or making of appointments, concerns that the practice was deserted, patients’ Medicare claims being rejected due to the applicant’s provider number being cancelled, and patients being unsure whether the applicant’s practice is permanently or temporarily closed.
Background to the decision of the Board
In January 2005, Mr Hooper made a s 53 application to the Board based on his growing concerns and the apparent breaches.
Section 53 of the Act gave the Board the power to order a medical practitioner to submit to an examination by a medical practitioner appointed by the Board for the purposes of an inquiry into the mental or physical capacity of the practitioner.
The Registrar’s application was made in pursuance of an inquiry under s 51 of the Act.
The reasons for the s 53 application and s 51 inquiry, as discussed above, were outlined by the Registrar in a document which appears at page 2 of CSJ 1. The Registrar raised other concerns in his application but I do not feel it necessary to outline those here.
The applicant was served with notice of the hearing of the application by Mr Bradley Williams on 24 January 2005 at his home address (page 1 of CSJ 1). A letter from the Board setting out the basis of the application was also given to the applicant by Mr Williams on that date (page 7 of CSJ 2) as well as a copy of the s 51 application (page 8 of CSJ 2). Those two documents are signed by the applicant to state that they were received. In the applicant’s affidavit FDN 6 filed 2 August 2010, the applicant admits to receiving such notice.
Mr Williams provided a statement describing his observations when serving the applicant with notice of the hearing. In the statement Mr Williams says “I noticed that all of the glass windows were smashed and boarded up with cardboard. Dr Bonello … was wearing pants, shoes with no socks, no shirt, had heavy eyelids and was unshaven. He appeared to be unwell. The room was extremely untidy. There was junk and rubbish scattered around the room. There was hypodermic syringe packets scattered on the floor. There was a canister for dispensing Nitrous Oxide sitting on a table on the far wall of the room. He said “I am out of food and haven’t eaten for four days. I also have a Urinary Tract Infection.”
After being told by Mr Williams that the Registrar was concerned that the applicant was suffering from a depressive illness, the applicant told Mr Williams “I do not agree with the conditions of practice. I didn’t agree to enter into the conditions that were imposed. I have used Ketamine for appropriate medical purposes. I use it for depression, when everything else has failed.” When asked when he last used it, the applicant told Mr Williams “a couple of months or so”.
As outlined in the statement, the applicant told Mr Williams that he was not currently practising as a result of events concerning the Board. He told Mr Williams that he had not attended at his surgery recently as the only two sets of keys to the surgery were with persons called Lyn Artis and Benny Moore. The applicant then told Mr Williams that the old lock had been taken off the surgery doors and that the surgery was unlocked, though alarm-monitored by Chubb security.
At paragraph 29 of the statement, Mr Williams states that the applicant told him of prescribing medication to patients from home pro bono using old prescription pads he had found. The applicant told Mr Williams that he had last done that a few days ago.
Hearing on 10 February 2005
The applicant did not attend on 10 February 2005 and the hearing was conducted in his absence. At page 4 of the transcript of the hearing Mr Williams gave evidence that he had tried to contact the applicant by telephone when he did not appear. However, the applicant’s landline number was disconnected and his mobile phone was switched off.
In the applicant’s affidavit FDN 6 filed 2 August 2010, he states that he was at the District Court that morning and afternoon “trying to obtain an injunction against the holding of such a meeting; the reason for this was that I feared it would be prejudicial to my forthcoming trial by the Medical Tribunal as both would be dealing with my partaking of the drug Ketamine”. He further states that he asked one of the court clerks to phone the Board and inform them why he was not at the meeting.
As the Board was satisfied that the applicant had received notice of the hearing, the Board had the power to proceed in the applicant’s absence pursuant to s 57(2) of the Act. At the hearing, the Board heard the application and made an initial order pursuant to s 53(1) of the Act that the applicant submit to a medical examination.
The medical practitioner appointed by the Board for the examination was Dr Michael Baigent, a consultant psychiatrist and expert in drug and alcohol matters. The examination was to occur at 10:30 am on 11 February 2005 at the Flinders Medical Centre. The applicant was personally served with notice of the order on the day of the hearing, and the purposes of the order were explained to him. The affidavit deposed to by Mr Arthur dated 10 February 2005 evidences that (page 40 of CSJ 2). In the applicant’s affidavit FDN 6 filed 2 August 2010, he admits to receiving notice of the examination from both the Board and Mr Arthur when he attended at the Board’s premises in the afternoon of 10 February 2005. In statement dated 10 February 2005, Mr Williams states that the applicant was “dressed in an untidy fashion, wearing an old short sleeved shirt, tattered green pants attached at the waist with a safety pin and brown slippers” and that he told Mr Williams he would be in court the next day but that he would “drop that”.
Non-attendance at medical examination
The Registrar of the Board was notified by letter of Dr Baigent dated 11 February 2005 that the applicant did not attend at the medical examination. In the applicant’s affidavit FDN 6 filed 2 August 2010, he states “Because I lived alone and couldn’t trust an alarm clock to wake me up just after 9.00 am I decided I should stay up all night. This proved to be a bad and costly tactical error, because what actually happened was that around 10 minutes to 9.00 am I fell asleep. I slept for 8 solid hours… The big problem was that it was again too late to let the MBSA and Dr Baigent know, even after the event!”
Because of the applicant’s failure to attend the scheduled medical examination, the Board made a date to resume its hearing and final determination of the application. On 16 February 2005, Mr Arthur personally served the applicant with notice of the resumption of the Board hearing the next day. The letter explained the purpose of the hearing and that the applicant would have the opportunity to make submissions, give evidence, or call or cross-examine witnesses on the question of whether the Board should make an order under s 53(2) to suspend his registration. The applicant denies receiving that letter.
At page 29 of the transcript of the hearing Mr Arthur gave evidence that he attended at the applicant’s home address and handed him the letter from the Board dated 16 February 2005. Mr Arthur gave further evidence that he read the entirety of the letter to the applicant at that time.
The Board decision
The applicant did not attend at the 17 February 2005 hearing, and was therefore unable to explain to the Board his reason for missing the medical examination.
At the hearing, the Board made a final order in the applicant’s absence pursuant to s 53(2) of the Act to suspend his registration until such time as he attended for a medical examination with Dr Baigent. That order is the subject of this appeal and appears at page 68 of CSJ 2. The Board had the power to proceed in the applicant’s absence pursuant to s 57(2) of the Act.
A copy of that order was personally served on the applicant on 22 February 2005 by Mr Williams, along with a letter from the Board explaining the procedure for reinstatement of registration (see statement of Mr Williams at page 69 and 72 of CSJ 2).
To complete the picture, on 17 February 2005, the Board made a complaint under s 58 of the Act to the Medical Practitioners Professional Conduct Tribunal of unprofessional conduct based on breaches by the applicant of the Supreme Court order. This was further to the complaint made on 17 June 2004.
On 19 December 2005 the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal found the applicant guilty of unprofessional conduct, by breaching the conditions of practice imposed by the Supreme Court in 2002. Reasons for decision of the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal dated 19 December 2005 are at page 82 of CSJ 2.
It is noteworthy that although the Tribunal’s decision was subsequent to the decision of the Board appealed against, the Tribunal made various findings of fact relating to the applicant’s conduct prior to the Board decision. Those findings are related to the background facts for the Board’s decision. I summarise those in dot point form:
·That the applicant was either in possession of ketamine, or administered ketamine, used ketamine or prescribed ketamine on four separate occasions between July 2002 and October 2004.
·A number of phials of ketamine were seized from his home on 18 July 2002, some full and some empty. Some phials were in a locked safe to which the applicant had access.
·Mr Jenkins, pharmacist at Amcal Pharmacy Marden, provided the Tribunal with a number of prescriptions written by the applicant for ketamine. He also provided computer records showing occasions of dispensing Ketalar to the applicant. The Tribunal found it proved that the applicant prescribed Ketalar on 25 August 2003.
·Mr Bruce Scrivener, pharmacist at Evandale, now retired, gave evidence that he supplied the applicant with Ketalar on numerous occasions, providing the Tribunal with an account book listing particular dispense dates. The Tribunal found it proved that Mr Scrivener dispensed Ketalar to the applicant personally on 6 August 2004.
·The applicant admitted to prescribing Ketalar after the date of the Supreme Court order on 2 October 2002 and 17 June 2003.
·The applicant conceded that he may have obtained a box of Ketalar in June 2004.
·The applicant admitted to the use of ketamine to Mr Bradley Williams on 24 January 2005.
·That the applicant practiced medicine from a premises other than the Evandale Clinic, primarily his residential address, in breach of the order.
· The applicant admitted to examining and prescribing medication to patients at his residential address to Mr Bradley Williams on 24 January 2005.
· At the hearing, the applicant denied examining his patients at home and clarified that he merely prescribed medication for them.
Submissions of the Board in this Court
On the date of the appeal, the applicant sought an adjournment as he said he was not ready to make submissions. Mr Grant, counsel for the respondent, was invited to make submissions first, which he did.
Mr Grant submitted that the application for an extension of time should be refused because of the lack of substantial grounds which would justify the granting of an extension. Mr Grant referred to judgment of Walters J in R v Trotter (1979) 22 SASR 64 at p 65, relied upon because of the quasi-criminal nature of the Board’s disciplinary proceedings.
In that judgment, Walters J said at page 65 “In dealing with the application, the court will consider whether there exist any substantial grounds for apprehending a miscarriage of justice. And if the proposed notice of appeal or application for leave discloses no sufficient grounds of appeal, the application for extension of time will not be granted”.
He then submitted that the appeal has no merit. He made very detailed submissions regarding the history and background of the Board decision to support his argument. I have set out that background earlier in these reasons.
Mr Grant submitted that the evidence before the Court indicates that the Board had very good reason for proceeding as it did, to first conduct an inquiry to see if the applicant was a fit and proper person to practise medicine by requiring a medical examination. Secondly, that urgency for the examination was justified in the circumstances given that the applicant admitted to writing prescriptions from home, in squalid conditions, leaving his surgery unlocked with confidential patient information unsecured, the applicant’s appearance, and his admitted continued use of ketamine.
Mr Grant submitted that the Board acted within the law with the applicant being given ample opportunity to be heard on the issue, in keeping with the principles of natural justice. Following Mr Grant’s submission I adjourned the matter for two weeks to enable Mr Bonello to respond in writing or orally or both.
Response of the applicant
The applicant submitted on the resumed hearing on 15 July 2010 that he had recently attempted to make an appointment for an examination with Dr Baigent. The applicant has not received a response to his enquiries.
The applicant filed a document which although not in affidavit form, was nonetheless accepted as part of his submissions. I have earlier referred to this document as applicant’s affidavit FDN 6 filed 2 August 2010. That affidavit has attached Document 1, Document 2, Document 3 and exhibit A, C, D, E and X. There is also a document called “Addendum to Affidavit” and a faxed document titled ‘exhibit E’ comprising affidavits of the applicant and Ms Margaret Robinson Calderwood. The applicant also provided to the Court a statement of sorts, in three parts. These are titled “Brief History and Academic Achievements”, “My Philosophy on Drugs of Abuse”, and “Who is Dr Bonello and What Kind of Doctor is he?”
I advised Mr Grant, that subject to anything he might want to put in response, I would accept those documents as part of Mr Bonello’s written submissions. Mr Grant accepted that this was the appropriate way to deal with the documents.
The applicant submits that “there are many error and false presumptions in the respondent’s documents submitted as CSJ 1”. The false presumptions the applicant points to are allegations of ketamine use, breaches of the Supreme Court order, that he did not intend to overdose, and that the Registrar’s complaint was false and wrong and should never have been made.
With regard to ketamine use, the applicant submits “the facts showed only that I had purchased a certain amount of the drug Ketamine between the years 2002-2005. The Registrar has the right to assume that this drug was purchased for self use but not that I had abused it much less that I was dependent on it”. He also submits that he kept a computerised log of his ketamine use, which was stolen in a break-in in November 2004. He submits in reference to the log “this was showing I was using about 40 milligrams per week, a ridiculously low dose, always on a Friday evening after the working week was over; but it was enough to take the edge off”.
The applicant also submits “I was, of course, dependent on Ketamine. Absolutely! But only in the way everyone else is dependent on the air we breathe, or the food we drink we imbibe. We have to do this for survival, do we not? In the same way I had to take Ketamine in minute dosage, to retain my sanity!”
In respect of breaches of the Supreme Court order which were found by the Medical Professional Conduct Tribunal and discussed in CSJ 1, the applicant submits that some of the breaches alleged were not made out and with respect to the ones that were “I always felt deep inside that I should not be held totally responsible if, in exceptional circumstances, I would have to disobey one or two of the subsequent orders”.
The applicant submits that he did not intend to overdose, but that it was a misunderstanding by his friend who was there at the time.
Regarding the Registrar’s complaint, the applicant states in his affidavit “the Medical Board had received an (obviously false) report and complaint against me which it couldn’t tell me who the author was or what the substance of the complaint was, due to national security issues. I can tell you who it was. It was by a person, probably by the name of John Alan Bate, who was related to Mr. James Rowe and who is a member of the Australian Secret Service.” He further states “The point I am trying to make here is that over a period of many years my practice was being attacked from all directions and I was being subjected, as a result, to tremendous mental anguish and suffering which satisfy all the conditions of The United Nations’ definition of the word “torture”.
Extension of time
The decision appealed against was made, as I have said, on 17 February 2005. Under s 66(2) of the Act, the applicant was required to file notice of his appeal sixty days from that date. His time expired on 18 April 2005. On appeal, the applicant made submissions explaining the delay. I set those out here.
The applicant submitted that a few days after the Board decision he was placed in the psychiatric ward of the RAH, at the request of the Board. The applicant stated that he stayed in the RAH for one month.
The applicant submits that following his release he was still unwell, suffering from depression, and unable to conduct his affairs to any degree. It was submitted that he was very unwell up until only three months ago, when his cognitive therapy took effect. The applicant submitted that he has been treated by Dr Behrens for his depression using cognitive therapy for the past year. Prior to that, he was treated with medication that did not improve his condition.
In his affidavit, the applicant states that he should be granted an extension of time as s 66(2) of the Act “does not place any time limit on the application for an extension” and that it would be just and reasonable in the circumstances to do so.
The applicant submits it would be just and reasonable to grant an extension of time because it is not clear to him why the Board felt it necessary to invoke the power in s 53 of the Act. He submits that “the Board broke the Law by invoking the power it had by virtue of Section 53 in referring me to a specialist on the application of the Registrar, a mere lay person, and not a medical practitioner, because Section 53 is clearly consequent upon Section 52 … I am certain about this”.
The applicant further submits “I was not medically fit, due to my reactive depression and its sequelae, to initiate such an action (lodge an appeal) until about 3 and a ½ months ago…” and “to deny me an extension of time, as provided by the law, would be tantamount to allowing a significant and/or substantial miscarriage of justice to occur”.
The miscarriage of justice submitted by the applicant appears to be that the Board decision was based on erroneous statements made by the respondent, and that orders were made in the applicant’s absence when the applicant had reasonable explanations for not attending at the hearings. The statements referred to are about his use and dependence on ketamine. The applicant’s explanations for non-attendance have been canvassed above. I have discussed what the applicant says about his ketamine use above.
Conclusion
This is an unfortunate case. The applicant obviously was a hard-working and successful practitioner. It is of particular concern to the court that any professional person serving the needs of the sick should become so sick himself as to be a danger to the public as well as himself.
My observations are that Mr Bonello is clearly not well and disorientated to some degree. He struggled with the issues which he had to face in representing himself. However I do have a comprehensive picture of how Mr Bonello has decompensated over several years.
I find that the reasons given by the applicant for the delay are unsatisfactory and do not warrant the granting of an extension of time in which to appeal the decision of the Board. The applicant has not provided any material to support the claims he makes relating to his depression and alleged incapacitation for the last five years. I have not received a report from Dr Behrens. I accept on his word that he was “incarcerated” for one month of the two months he had to file an appeal. However that does not explain his inaction for the last five years.
Further, s 53 of the Act was not reliant upon s 52. Section 53 gave the Board the power to make the order that it did for the purpose of inquiring into the mental and physical capacity of the applicant with respect to the proceedings before the Board under s 51.
In my view no miscarriage of justice occurs by refusing the applicant’s application. Although it is not my task, I consider Mr Bonello should not be practising medicine at the present time. He is clearly not well.
I find that, for the reasons I have given, the proposed appeal is without any merit. The Board made its decision on solid grounds, and given the information before the Board, its decision to suspend the registration of the applicant was appropriate. In the circumstances I can understand why the Board would choose not to schedule another medical examination. It was entirely in the applicant’s hands to attend an examination with Dr Baigent at another time in 2005. Even if I were to grant the extension of time, I would dismiss the appeal on the material presently before me.
I refuse the application for extension of time in which to appeal.