Pitt v The Queen

[2011] VSCA 26

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 944 of 2008 

ANTHONY JAMES PITT

v

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY and BONGIORNO JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 February 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 February 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 26

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Late application to appeal against conviction – Extension of time – Inadequate material filed in support of application – Application refused – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J McLoughlin	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr P N Rose SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

1. By application filed 15 December 2008, Anthony James Pitt sought extension of time within which to lodge notice of appeal against conviction.  The conviction was recorded in May 1990.  The applicant was then sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, a sentence which he has long since served.  He has, however, subsequently been convicted and imprisoned for offences in respect of which there is still considerable time to be served.

1. The application made in December 2008 was the subject of explanation, so far as delay is concerned, by the applicant stating that he suffers with mental illness and tends to procrastinate. 

1. The apparent ground upon which he would seek to pursue the appeal against conviction is that, subsequent to his conviction and imprisonment, the complainant wrote him a letter and sent him photographs of herself in lingerie.  That happened after he was convicted of another matter in respect of which she was a witness.

1. The connection between the letter and the sending of photographs and the propriety of the conviction in 1990 is not immediately apparent.  It was not apparent to the registrar who dismissed the application for extension of time.  From that dismissal the applicant has elected to have the matter dealt with by this Court.

1. In my opinion the application is hopeless for a number of reasons.  The delay is inordinate.  It has not been acceptably explained.  The proposed ground is hopeless. There is no substantial reason for granting the application.  The matter is so old that the Crown might well be prejudiced in preparing the appeal if the application for extension of time were granted and, in turn, leave to appeal was granted.  Finally, there is no material filed in support of the application which suggests that the interests of justice require that extension be granted.

1. In my opinion, for all those reasons, the application to extend time ought be refused.

1. This ruling involves no point of principle.

BONGIORNO JA:

1. I agree with Ashley JA.

ASHLEY JA:

1. The order of the Court is that the application is refused.

- - -