Heddwyn Alaw Jones v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0240

HEDDWYN ALAW JONES	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST, BEACH and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 February 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 February 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 11
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jones (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Allen, 26 October 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Conviction — Application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction — Applicant pleaded guilty recklessly causing serious injury — Whether the merits of the proposed appeal warrant extension — Grounds of appeal have no prospects of success — Application refused — Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 313 and 276 — Madafferi v The Queen [2017] VSCA 302.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	In person
For the Respondent	Mr B Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA
NIALL JA:

An application for extension of time

In the evening of Tuesday, 14 April 2015, in circumstances we will later describe, the applicant, then aged 40 years, severely beat another man, ‘RM’, then aged 49. The beating caused serious injury to RM, including a fractured ankle, right eye socket, elbow and nasal bones; bleeding around the brain; multiple abrasions; and bruising and swelling to his upper body. Scarring of his airways resulted in infection, causing breathing difficulties. RM suffers post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the incident, and his future quality of life is expected to be poor.

The applicant was arrested on 15 April 2015. Initially he was charged with intentionally causing serious injury; recklessly causing serious injury; false imprisonment; making a threat to kill; and theft. Committal proceedings took place on 20 October and 3 December 2015, resulting in the applicant being committed to stand trial in the County Court. In the lead-up to the trial, which was listed for 15 August 2016, a directions hearing and sentence indication hearing were conducted. Following these, on 15 June 2016 the applicant accepted an offer that he plead guilty to a single charge of recklessly causing serious injury.

On 22 June 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury. When once more arraigned before the sentencing judge on 20 October 2016, the applicant again pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury, and admitted prior convictions.[1] In the course of a plea hearing conducted that day, counsel for the applicant tendered an apology by the applicant to the victim, dated 28 July 2016 (Exhibit 5). Omitting formalities, it was in the following terms:

I am writing this letter in an attempt to convey to you my deepest and most sincere apologies and hopefully to give you a sense of closure in any way possible.
This I genuinely mean. First of all I’ve been in jail for 18 months now, and this has had a dramatic effect on my thinking in regards to the incident. I want you to know I deeply…

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 Heddwyn Alaw Jones v The Queen 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: [2018] VSCA 11
Decision Date: 2 February 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Heddwyn Alaw Jones v The Queen involved the applicant appealing against his conviction, seeking an extension of time to appeal. The applicant had pleaded guilty to recklessly causing serious injury and was now seeking to challenge his conviction. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The legal issues before the court were whether the merits of the proposed appeal warranted an extension of time and whether the grounds of appeal had any prospects of success.

The court examined the merits of the proposed appeal and concluded that they did not warrant an extension of time. The applicant's grounds of appeal were found to have no prospects of success, and the court found that there was no sufficient justification for the delay in lodging the appeal. The court referred to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 and case law, including Madafferi v The Queen, in reaching its decision. The court found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time.

The court's reasoning was based on the principle that an extension of time to appeal should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The court found that the applicant had not provided any sufficient justification for the delay in lodging the appeal, and the grounds of appeal had no prospects of success. The application for an extension of time was therefore refused. The court did not make any further orders.

Orders