Piepkorn v POLICE

[2005] SASC 193

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Full Court: Leave to Appeal in Private)

PIEPKORN v POLICE

Judgment of The Full Court

(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Duggan and The Honourable Justice Bleby)

31 May 2005

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEAL

An application for an extension of time within which to appeal to the Full Court from a decision of a single Judge of this Court - application after approximately nine months - whether the explanation was adequate - application refused.

Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA), s 50(1a)(c)(i); Supreme Court Rules 1987, R 94.03, referred to.

PIEPKORN v POLICE
[2005] SASC 193

Full Court:  Doyle CJ, Duggan and Bleby J

1. THE COURT:      This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal to the Full Court against a decision by a single Judge of this Court.  The single Judge dismissed an appeal against a conviction recorded by the Magistrates Court, and dismissed an appeal against the sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court.

2. If an extension of time is granted, Ms Piepkorn seeks leave to appeal to the Full Court. By s 50(1a)(c)(i) of the Supreme Court Act 1935 an appeal does not lie without the leave of either the single judge or the Full Court.

3. Ms Piepkorn was convicted and fined by the Magistrates Court on a charge of two relatively minor traffic offences.  She pleaded guilty in the Magistrates Court.

4. On appeal to the single Judge she claimed that she was coerced and intimidated into pleading guilty.

5. The Judge heard evidence from Ms Piepkorn on her appeal, and evidence led by the respondent.  He dismissed the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence on 27 May 2004.  He did not accept Ms Piepkorn’s evidence. 

6. About nine months later Ms Piepkorn applied for an extension of time within which to appeal, and for leave to appeal.  The Judge refused to extend time on 21 March 2005.  He said that Ms Piepkorn’s explanation for the lengthy delay was not satisfactory.  He said that in any event he would have refused leave to appeal, as there were no sufficient grounds to support a grant of leave to appeal.

7. By a Notice for Specific Directions filed on 3 May 2005, Ms Piepkorn now seeks from the Full Court an extension of time within which to appeal and leave to appeal.

8. Pursuant to r 94.03 of the Supreme Court Rules the applications were heard in private by the Court comprising me, Duggan J and Bleby J.

9. Ms Piepkorn should have made her application within 14 days of 21 March 2005.  Her explanation for the delay is again inadequate.  She attributes the delay to the fact that she is not a solicitor.  The procedure in question is relatively straightforward, and in view of her previous experience she should have realised the importance of moving more promptly than she did.  We are not satisfied that it is appropriate to grant an extension of time.

10. In any event, even if an extension of time were granted, we would refuse leave to appeal.  Her summary of argument provides no basis for the Court to grant leave to appeal.  She identifies no issue of principle that arises, and no issue of general importance.  Nor has she identified any reasonably arguable grounds upon which the decision dismissing her appeal could be attacked.  The Judge’s reasons for dismissing the appeal are comprehensive and persuasive.

11. Accordingly, this is not a case that would, or could, attract a grant of leave to appeal.  For those reasons we refuse to extend the time within which an application for leave to appeal may be made.  Accordingly, it is not necessary to deal specifically with the application for leave to appeal.