Monforte v The Queen

In Monforte v The Queen, the appellant, Monforte, sought an extension of time to file a notice of leave to appeal against his conviction. The application was made in the Court of Appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic). The respondent, The Queen, opposed the application. The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge correctly refused the application for an extension of time, whether the jury was properly directed on the standard of proof and the impact of the trial judge's interventions, and whether the trial judge's report contained an argumentative style.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicable statutory provisions and relevant case law, including Bowling v The Queen [2013] VSCA 87 and Madafferi v The Queen [2017] VSCA 302, in relation to the extension of time application. The court found that the trial judge correctly refused the application, as it was not filed within the prescribed time limits. The court also held that the jury was properly directed on the standard of proof in accordance with R v Dookhea (2017) 347 ALR 529, and that the trial judge's interventions during cross-examination and direction as to the demeanour of the child witness did not prejudice the appellant or infringe the Jury Directions Act 2015 (Vic). The court further held that there was no miscarriage of justice, as the jury was not in danger of reaching a verdict by choosing between the belief in either the complainant's or the appellant's account, as per Liberato v The Queen (1985) 159 CLR 507. Lastly, the court noted that the trial judge's report contained an argumentative style, but did not find it to be a ground for allowing the appeal, in light of Raimondi v The Queen [2013] VSCA 194.

As a result of the above findings, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time and his appeal against conviction. The decision to refuse the extension of time application was upheld, and the conviction was affirmed. No orders were made in relation to the trial judge's report or the other issues raised by the appellant.