K v The Queen [No 2]

[2008] WASCA 14

K -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2008] WASCA 14

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2008] WASCA 14
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACR:23/2007	Heard:	16 JANUARY 2008
Coram:	STEYTLER P McLURE JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	15/01/08
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application for review dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	K THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Appeal Application for review of decision refusing leave to appeal Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61(3)
Case References:	K v The Queen [2007] WASC 31

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : K -v- THE QUEEN [No 2] [2008] WASCA 14 CORAM : STEYTLER P

McLURE JA
PULLIN JA

HEARD : 16 JANUARY 2008 DELIVERED : 16 JANUARY 2008 FILE NO/S : CACR 23 of 2007 BETWEEN : K

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : HASLUCK J

Citation : K -v- THE QUEEN [2007] WASC 31

File No : SJA 1092 of 2006

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : WHEELER JA

Citation : K -v- THE QUEEN [2007] WASCA 167

File No : CACR 23 of 2007

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Appeal - Application for review of decision refusing leave to appeal - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 61(3)

Result:

Application for review dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

K v The Queen [2007] WASC 31


(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER P: I agree with Pullin JA. I would only add that insofar as the applicant said in the hearing that he would like to have had legal assistance, it seems to me that this is not a case in which legal assistance would make any significant difference.

2 McLURE JA: I agree with Pullin JA and the comments of the President.

3 PULLIN JA: The appellant's application is for a review of the order of Wheeler JA, who dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against orders made by Hasluck J on 13 February 2007. Hasluck J, by his orders, dismissed the appellant's application to extend time to appeal against certain convictions in the Court of Petty Sessions and dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal.

4 The convictions had been recorded over 17 years ago on 3 August 1989. The convictions were for indecently dealing with a child under the age of 14 years and procuring a child to indecently deal. Details are set out in Hasluck J's reasons for decision in K v The Queen [2007] WASC 31 [10].

5 The appellant was represented by a lawyer. He pleaded guilty to the charges and he was sentenced to an aggregate term of 4 years 6 months' imprisonment. Hasluck J set out the principles governing the application for an extension of time and concluded that the delay had not been explained and that there was no merit in the proposed grounds. His Honour also discovered that the appellant had made an earlier unsuccessful application for leave to appeal, which was dismissed by Wallwork J in 1993.

6 Wheeler JA concluded that the appellant had cast no doubt on Hasluck J's decision, which meant that none of the appellant's proposed grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding. Her Honour therefore refused to grant leave to appeal. This application for review made pursuant to s 61(3) of the Supreme Court Act does not reveal that any material error was made by Wheeler JA. As a result this application for review must be dismissed.