Moore-McQuillan v Police No. Scciv-00-193

[2002] SASC 163

MOORE-McQUILLAN  v  POLICE
[2002] SASC 163

Full Court:  Doyle CJ, Perry and Lander JJ

1. DOYLE CJ, PERRY & LANDER JJ:             This is an application to the Full Court for leave to appeal against a decision by Bleby J given on 3 April 2001.

2. Bleby J dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Magistrates Court convicting the applicant of an offence, and dismissed an appeal against sentence.  However, Bleby J set aside a restraining order and a firearms order made by the Magistrates Court.

3. By application filed on 4 March 2002 the applicant sought an extension of time within which to appeal against the decision of Bleby J, and leave to appeal against that decision.

4. The application for an extension of time was refused by Bleby J on 22 March 2002.  Bleby J published written reasons for that decision.  He was not satisfied that the delay was adequately explained.  He considered that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.  They were his reasons for refusing the extension of time.

5. The order refusing the extension of time has been incorrectly drawn up, in that it records that the decision was made by Wicks J.

6. The applicant now seeks from the Full Court an extension of time within which to appeal against the decision of Bleby J of 3 April 2001, and leave to appeal against that decision.

7. The application was considered by the Full Court in private pursuant to r 94.03.  The Court for that purpose comprised Doyle CJ, Perry J and Lander J.

8. It appears that the applicant may not have filed a fresh application for an extension of time and for leave to appeal, but may be relying on the application that was considered by Bleby J.  Nevertheless, the Court has considered the application on its merits.

9. The Court has considered the affidavit sworn by the applicant and the exhibits to the affidavit, summary of argument, and the other material submitted by the applicant.

10. The Court is unanimously of the opinion that the lengthy delay between the decision in April 2001 and the first application for an extension of time in March 2002, is not adequately explained.  The Court is also unanimously of the opinion that the proposed appeal has no reasonably arguable prospects of success.  It does not raise any issue of general importance, nor does it raise an arguable case that Bleby J erred.

11. For those reasons, the order of the Court is that the application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal, or within which to appeal, be refused.