DJT v Tasmania - [2018] TASSC 57

[2018] TASSC 57

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: DJT v Tasmania [2018] TASSC 57

PARTIES:  D J T
  v
  STATE OF TASMANIA

FILE NO:  2142/2018
DELIVERED ON:  28 November 2018
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  19 October, 15 November 2018
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Procedure – Notice of appeal – Time for appeal and extension thereof – Extension of time for appeal – No prospect of appeal succeeding.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3555]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  In Person
             Respondent:  E Avery
Solicitors:
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2018] TASSC 57
Number of paragraphs: 34

Serial No 57/2018
File No 2142/2018

D J T v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

28 November 2018

In May of this year a jury found the applicant guilty of two counts of rape and two counts of maintaining sexual relationships with young persons under the age of 17 years. The four charges related to four different complainants. On 7 June Porter AJ convicted him and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment on the rape charges with a non-parole period of 18 months, and to a cumulative term of 12 years' imprisonment on the other charges, with a non-parole period of eight years. On 6 August the applicant filed a notice of appeal against his convictions, and an application for an extension of the time for appealing. Under s 407(1) of the Criminal Code, any person desiring to appeal against a conviction is required to give notice of appeal within 14 days of the date of the conviction. The applicant's notice of appeal was filed 60 days after his convictions were imposed.
The Crown contends that an extension of time should be refused on the ground that the delay in appealing was inordinate and on the ground that the appeal would have no hope of success.
The applicant's grounds of appeal read as follows:
"1Jail Chronology Proves Non Presence
22 Jury members should not have been Present
3inconsistancy [sic]".
The applicant was not represented by counsel. In the course of oral submissions, he explained and added to his proposed grounds of appeal. He gave evidence in support of his application, and was cross-examined. I will deal with each suggested ground of appeal, including those that were not referred to in the notice of appeal.

Gaol chronology

The applicant was arrested on 13 July 2011 and spent about six months in custody as from that day. He contends that, as a result of being in prison at that time, he has alibis in relation to some of the occasions relied upon by the Crown in relation to the charges of maintaining sexual relationships with young persons. Those charges were counts 3 and 4 on the indictment. The complainants to whom they related have been referred to as C and A respectively. C was his stepdaughter. A is his daughter.
By virtue of s…

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.

Continue reading DJT v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: DJT v Tasmania [2018] TASSC 57
Case: [2018] TASSC 57
Decision Date: 28 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DJT versus Tasmania, the central issue revolved around the timeliness of an appeal filed by the defendant, DJT, against his conviction and sentence. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The defendant, having been convicted and sentenced in the Magistrates' Court, sought to appeal the decision, but the appeal was filed beyond the statutory time limit. Tasmania argued that the appeal was out of time and, therefore, invalid, while DJT sought an extension of time or a waiver of the time limit due to various circumstances he claimed contributed to the delay.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal was within the permissible time frame and, if not, whether there were grounds to extend the time for appeal or to exercise the court's discretion to waive the time limit. The court had to consider statutory provisions governing the time for filing appeals, the circumstances leading to the delay in filing, and the principle of finality in legal proceedings. Additionally, the court examined whether DJT's reasons for the delay were compelling enough to warrant an extension of time or a waiver of the statutory time limit.

The court held that the appeal was indeed filed beyond the statutory time limit and that DJT had not provided sufficient justification for the delay. The reasons presented by DJT did not meet the high threshold required to persuade the court to extend the time or to exercise its discretion to waive the time limit. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to statutory time limits for appeals and noted that extensions are only granted in exceptional circumstances where there is a real prospect of the appeal succeeding and where the delay can be explained satisfactorily. Given the lack of a real prospect of success and the inadequate explanation for the delay, the court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Consequently, the conviction and sentence of the Magistrates' Court remained unchanged.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed, with no order as to costs. The decision underscored the importance of timely appeals and the stringent requirements for extending or waiving the statutory time limits.

Orders