R v Brady

Case

[1992] QCA 329

8/09/1992

No judgment structure available for this case.

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 329

MACROSSAN CJ
PINCUS JA

MOYNIHAN J

CA No 207 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

MICHAEL FRANCIS BRADY Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 08/09/92
JUDGMENT

080992
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The Court now has before it an application for extension of time to
appeal against conviction. The applicant, on the material, is shown to have been convicted of the
offence of production of a dangerous drug, which was cannabis sativa. He was sentenced to two
months imprisonment, and he has served that sentence.

He is two days out of time in seeking to challenge the conviction. He makes some explanation of that fact. It is not necessary to go into that too deeply, since it was only a matter of two days. If that were the only obstacle in front of him, the Crown indicates that it would not have opposed the extension application.

However, the applicant is not represented, and does not himself appear to argue his extension application. He has sent some written material to Court, and indicates that he wishes to rely on that. He says that he is - on his last communication to the Court - in Cairns, and he is in effect unable to attend to present his arguments.

Without indicating an attitude which I think the Court should take if his grounds of appeal against conviction were persuasive - that is in a case where an applicant does not attend and is not represented before the Court - in this case, I would say that, having glanced through his grounds, obviously drawn by himself, I am persuaded that we should simply dismiss his application. The grounds do not, on their face, appear persuasive.

The submission for the Crown is that, on analysis and with reference to the record, there does not appear to be particular substance or relevance in the grounds. I would then simply refuse the application for extension of time, so much appearing on a survey of the written material, and the applicant not having, in any event, attended before the Court.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

MOYNIHAN J: So do I.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

- - - - -

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0