R v Campbell

COURT OF APPEAL

[1996] QCA 569

PINCUS JA
THOMAS J

WHITE J

CA No 379 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

STEPHEN JOHN CAMPBELL

Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 22/11/96
221196 T17/FLC14 M/T COA292/96
PINCUS JA: The Court will give you leave to add an additional
ground to your notice of appeal in these terms. That counsel
who appeared for the appellant at the trial mishandled the
defence and in particular did not familiarise himself with the
facts of the case nor heed the appellant's instructions. Now,
that is very general but you will have to set out in the
affidavit all the things you are complaining about and you will
want to get that affidavit in quite soon, you see, not just on
the eve of the hearing, preferably within the next week.
Understand that, and serve a copy on the Crown.

Then the Crown, the other side, will have an opportunity to study the affidavit and to check with your lawyer or whatever they want to do to see whether it is correct or not. Now, in this matter the appellant asserts that he received the record a week ago and that he has not had time to prepare the case. He appears for himself. The circumstances would not ordinarily warrant an adjournment but the appellant asserts that he has considerable difficulty with reading and that some 200 pages of the record have not been read. For myself I am not certain that an adjournment is going to achieve anything of value for the appellant but I am concerned that his disability which he claims to have does not disadvantage him unduly and I am also concerned that the Court should give him every opportunity reasonably available to upset the convictions which he attacks. I am therefore of opinion that the appeal should be adjourned sine die. That is the order which I would make.

221196 T17/FLC14 M/T COA292/96

THOMAS J: I agree.

WHITE J: I agree also.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Campbell was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Stephen John Campbell, sought leave to add an additional ground to his notice of appeal, alleging that counsel who appeared for him at the trial mishandled the defence. Specifically, Campbell claimed that the counsel did not familiarise himself with the facts of the case nor heed his instructions. The appeal pertained to Campbell's convictions and sought to challenge them based on the alleged mishandling of the defence by his legal representation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the appellant leave to add an additional ground to his notice of appeal and, if so, under what conditions. The Court also had to consider whether an adjournment was warranted given Campbell's asserted difficulty with reading and the short time frame in which he received the record. The Court needed to balance the appellant's right to a fair appeal with the need to maintain the efficiency of the judicial process.

The Court of Appeal, consisting of Pincus JA, Thomas J, and White J, decided to grant the appellant leave to add an additional ground to his notice of appeal, albeit in a general form. The appellant was required to provide a detailed affidavit setting out the specifics of his complaints about the conduct of his trial counsel. The Court also decided to adjourn the appeal sine die to allow the appellant sufficient time to prepare his case, despite concerns that the appellant's reading difficulties did not warrant an adjournment under normal circumstances. The decision to adjourn was influenced by the Court's desire to give the appellant every reasonable opportunity to challenge his convictions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established