Clark v R (No 2)

[2015] NSWCCA 271

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Clark v R (No 2) [2015] NSWCCA 271
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	16 October 2015
Before:	Hoeben CJ at CL; Hall J; R A Hulme J
Decision:	Application dismissed
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – r 50C Criminal Appeal Rules – application to set aside judgment refusing an application to set aside judgment which refused an application to set aside a judgment – application vexatious – application dismissed
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 66C Criminal Appeal Rules 1912 (NSW) r 50C
Cases Cited:	Clark v R [2015] NSWCCA 265 PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275 PFC v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 241
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Peter Frederick Clark Regina
Representation:	Counsel:     Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2008/3811; 2008/62317

Judgment

1. THE COURT: This is an application made on 13 October 2015 pursuant to r 50C of the Criminal Appeal Rules to set aside a judgment by the Court (Beazley P, Hall and Button JJ) of 6 October 2015: Clark v R [2015] NSWCCA 265. It is, in fact, an application to set aside a judgment refusing an application to set aside a judgment which refused an application to set aside a judgment.

2. Whilst the previous applications were wide-ranging, the present application is solely concerned with the applicant’s conviction in respect of an offence of aggravated sexual intercourse with child between 14-16: s 66C(4) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). It was one of 23 convictions recorded after a trial before Norrish QC DCJ in 2009. The other convictions were for offences in the nature of child sexual assault, child pornography and perverting the course of justice. There were six victims of the applicant’s offences.

3. Mr Clark was sentenced to an overall term of imprisonment for 14 years 5 months with a non-parole period of 10 years 9 months. For the offence in question he received a sentence of 4 years 6 months that was entirely or partially concurrent with other individual sentences. The practical reality is that if Mr Clark was not convicted in respect of this offence, the overall sentence would have been no different.

4. In 11 pages of written submissions in support of the present application Mr Clark seeks to advance issues that were decided adversely to him in his appeal against conviction (PFC v R [2011] NSWCCA 275); in an application under r 50C to set aside that judgment (PFC v R (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 241); and in an application under r 50C to set aside the refusal of his first r 50C application (Clark v R [2015] NSWCCA 265).

5. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of any of the previous judgments. Having regard to the extensive reasoning previously provided by the Court we do not consider it appropriate to once again engage with the issues. In short, the application is simply vexatious.

Order

6. The application is dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 16 October 2015