R v Brady Summary | CaseChat AU

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 329

MACROSSAN CJ
PINCUS JA

MOYNIHAN J

CA No 207 of 1992

THE QUEEN

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.

- - - - -

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal considered an application for an extension of time to appeal a conviction in the case of The Queen v. Michael Francis Brady. The applicant, Brady, was convicted of producing a dangerous drug, specifically cannabis sativa, and had been sentenced to two months imprisonment, which he had served. Brady sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction, citing a delay of two days. The Crown did not oppose the extension application on this ground alone. However, Brady was unrepresented and did not personally present his arguments before the Court, relying solely on written material. The Court found that the grounds of appeal, as presented in the written material, did not appear persuasive and were not particularly relevant or substantial. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for an extension of time.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to appeal his conviction, despite being unrepresented and failing to personally present his arguments. The Court also considered the merits of the grounds of appeal, which were presented in written form. The Court's decision hinged on whether the grounds of appeal were persuasive and whether the applicant's failure to appear and be represented before the Court should impact the outcome of the application.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the applicant’s grounds of appeal, as presented in his written material, did not appear to be persuasive. Additionally, the fact that Brady was unrepresented and did not personally present his arguments before the Court was a significant factor. The Chief Justice noted that even if the grounds had been persuasive, the absence of representation and personal appearance would likely have influenced the Court's decision. The Crown's submission supported the Court's view that the grounds lacked particular substance or relevance. Given these considerations, the Court unanimously refused the application for an extension of time.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal the conviction of Michael Francis Brady. The decision was based on the unpersuasive nature of the applicant's grounds of appeal, as presented in his written material, and the fact that he did not appear before the Court or have representation. The Court emphasised that the absence of personal presentation and representation, combined with the lack of merit in the grounds of appeal, justified the refusal of the extension application.

R v Brady

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established