R v Bates

[1999] QCA 225

99.225

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA DAVIES JA DEMACK J

CA No 155 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

GREGORY RALPH BATES	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 16/06/99
JUDGMENT
160699 D.1 T18/SKH18 M/T COA 134/99

PINCUS JA: These reasons relate to the application by

Gregory Ralph Bates, which was heard this morning.

This is an application of an extension of time within Justice Davies. His Honour explained in those reasons that on the night of 18 December 1996 a house at Woolloongabba was burnt down and a man was killed in the fire. The applicant was spoken to by police and ultimately admitted to having set fire to a settee under the house. It appears he also admitted that he then left and that after he left he saw the house was alight.

which to give notice of appeal against conviction. The
applicant was convicted in September 1997 of
manslaughter and arson committed in 1996. He appealed
to this Court and was represented by senior counsel.

There was some evidence of use of an accelerant to start the fire and evidence that the fire had commenced at a place other than that designated by the applicant. In the written outline submitted on behalf of the applicant it is said that he was unaware of his right to appeal. This is not credible since he in fact appealed and his appeal was heard and determined.

The grounds upon which the application is based are that the Judge should not have let in confessional evidence, that the evidence failed to prove arson, that the police failed properly to caution the applicant and that, "The evidence is inconsistent with the charges." All of

2   JUDGMENT

160699 D.1 T18/SKH18 M/T COA 134/99

these grounds were available in 1997. In the course of
his submissions today, Mr Bates produced a number of
documents which have been studied during the
adjournment. The principal point which is made in those
documents by Mr Bates is in substance that had he given
evidence below, which he did not, he would have been
able to say that the confessional evidence which was
adduced against him was produced by malpractice on the
part of the police. He also makes other points of a
legal character, but that seems to be his essential
contention. It is also argued that there was
inconsistent evidence in respect of forensic matters.

If an extension were granted, then, it would appear that Mr Bates would wish the matter to be retried to enable him to run a line of attack which, whether or not it was run below, was there unsupported by evidence. There is of course a question whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear a second appeal and authorities relevant to that point are to be found in Pettigrew [1997] 1 QdR 601 and in Mrsic, CA No 354 of 1998, 2 December 1998. It is unnecessary to say anything further about that topic, since it is plain that what the applicant wishes to do is to obtain an extension of time to re-run the appeal which was dismissed in 1997; the purpose of re-running the appeal is principally, as it seems to me, to explain what evidence he could have given had he given evidence below. If there were any discretion to allow this to occur, it would plainly not be properly exercised in

3   JUDGMENT

160699 D.1 T18/SKH18 M/T COA 134/99

favour of this applicant. I would therefore dismiss the

application.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DEMACK J: I agree.

PINCUS JA: The application for an extension of time is dismissed.

-----

4   JUDGMENT