R v Buchanan

[1995] QCA 483

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 483
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND	C.A. No. 298 of 1995
Brisbane
Before	Fitzgerald P. McPherson J.A. Lee J.

[R. v. Buchanan]

T H E Q U E E N

v.

SHAYNE MARK BUCHANAN Applicant

FITZGERALD P. MCPHERSON J.A.

LEE J.

Judgment delivered 03/11/1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:	SENTENCE - extension of time - possession of dangerous drug - dangerous driving
Counsel:	M Byrne Q.C. for the Respondent Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Solicitors:	Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent
Date(s) of Hearing:	4 October and 26 October 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 03/11/1995

This is an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on 6 June 1995. The applicant was convicted of two offences committed on 26 July 1994; possession of cannabis of a quantity exceeding the scheduled amount, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, and dangerous driving, for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for two years and was disqualified from holding a licence for three years.

The notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence was dated 19 July 1995 and apparently filed about 27 July 1995. The only explanation for the delay was an assertion by the applicant that his wife was to lodge the application, but they separated and she did not do so.

The matter first came before the Court on 10 October1995 when the applicant sought an adjournment, making statements about the refusal of legal aid and the retention of a solicitor, who, it was said, did not appear because he “was unable to attend due to lack of notice”. The Court granted an adjournment on that occasion, stating:

“... The Court will adjourn your application for extension of time but whether or not you have someone to act for you when the next date is set, you will have to be prepared for it to go on on that date. If no-one is acting for you, you will have to do it yourself and it is necessary for you to show why time should be extended, since you’re out of time and it’s unlikely the Court will be persuaded by just a bare statement that you’ve left it to your wife and she didn’t do it.

You would be wise to consider amplifying that and putting a statement with details of how your application didn’t get put in in time and the extent of your alliance (sic), an affidavit if you’re able to do that and you’re acting on your own would be desirable and if a solicitor is acting for you, the Court will expect an affidavit so you cannot hope to get any further adjournment. It will be adjourned to a date to be fixed. You will hear from the Court when the date is set.”

The matter next came before the Court on 26 October 1995, and the applicant again requested an adjournment, this time because a different solicitor who had become the applicant’s solicitor about “About six weeks ago” was “unable to attend today due to other matters”.

After discussion, during which it was apparent that the applicant was attempting to mislead the Court, the adjournment was refused and the applicant was informed that the Court was “plainly disposed to dismiss the application on what is presently before it”. However, the applicant was given until 4.00 p.m. on Thursday, 2 November 1995 to “put in written submissions by yourself or a lawyer acting for you as to why the sentence is too high and the Court will then decide the matter without hearing any further argument on that material”. The applicant said that that was clear to him.

No additional material was received by the time specified.

It is not proposed to record the facts of the offences, or to say more than that the Court was unable to discern any basis for a submission that either sentence was manifestly excessive, the ground which the applicant wished to assert.

Accordingly, the Court being satisfied that the application is without merit, it is refused.