R v Booth

[1999] QCA 437

99.437

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 229 of 1997A

THE QUEEN

v.

MICHAEL WAYNE BOOTH

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/10/99

ORDER

151099

THE PRESIDENT:  There are no appearances for either party in this matter although I would have expected some appearance on behalf of the respondent.

This is an old matter.  The appellant lodged an appeal on
2 June 1997.  Shortly before that time, the time within which a criminal notice of appeal must be filed was amended from 28 days to one calendar month.  Some errors then occurred.  Booth's appeal was lodged outside the 28 days but within the one calendar month.  The Registry informed Booth, wrongly as it turned out, that he needed an extension of time for filing the appeal.  Booth consequently lodged an application for an extension of time which was refused on
22 August 1997 after some consideration of the merits of any appeal.

When the Court discovered the error in respect of this matter on 1 April 1998 the Registry wrote to Booth's legal representatives informing them of the Court's error and a copy of the letter was also sent to Booth at his last known address, at 6 Burville Street, Canberra. 

On 20 April 1998 the letter sent to the appellant was returned unopened.  Neither legal aid nor the Corrective Services have been able to contact the appellant to inform him that his appeal was in fact within time.

The former President directed that the appellant's legal representatives should remain on the record in April 1998.  Legal aid then conducted a number of searches including car registration and electoral role searches throughout Australia.  Queensland Transport searches for registration revealed two possible addresses for a Michael Wayne Booth. Letters were sent but neither letter resulted in successful contact.

Finally on 19 August 1998 legal aid withdrew from the record.  No contact has been received from Booth since that time either by his former legal representatives or from the Court; the matter has been on an abeyance list.

In the circumstances, I am satisfied that the appeal should now be struck out for want of prosecution.  Should Booth wish to apply for an extension of time within which to appeal in the future he would not be precluded from so doing, but I note that the reasons for refusing his original application (229 of 1997) would not give him any cause for optimism as the merits of any appeal were given some consideration at that time.

I order that this appeal be struck out for want of prosecution and I direct that transcripts be provided in respect of both the mention matters this morning.

‑‑‑‑‑