R v Croft - [2008] VSCA 61

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 37 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
DAVID REWETI CROFT

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and KELLAM JJA and OSBORN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 April 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 April 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 61

---

Criminal law – Application for extension of time to appeal against conviction – Principles to be applied in considering application – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J D McArdle QC	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
The Applicant in person

REDLICH JA:

I will call on Kellam JA to deliver the first judgment.

KELLAM JA:

This is an application for the extension of time in which to bring notice of application to appeal conviction. Section 572(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 provides that when a person seeks leave to appeal conviction, notice thereof must be given to the Court of Appeal not later than 14 days after he or she has been convicted and sentenced. However the time within which such notice must be given may be extended at any time by the Court of Appeal.

The background to the application

On 18 June 1988 police arrested the applicant, David Reweti Croft, on a charge of trafficking in amphetamine. The evidence before the court was that undercover police officers, Angela King and Gary Attrill attended at premises in the Nepean Highway at Seaford that day purporting to be drug buyers. At the time there were a number of persons present at these premises. One of the undercover police officers was equipped with a recorder and listening device. It is asserted that whilst the police officers were at the premises the applicant arrived carrying a brown paper bag. The applicant was introduced to the undercover police officers as ‘Geoff’. After some discussion, undercover police officer King went outside to a vehicle and returned with $10,000 which was handed over to the applicant in her presence. The applicant then handed over the paper bag to the undercover police officers. Upon that occurring, the premises were raided by police and all persons present were arrested. The contents of the brown paper bag were analysed by a forensic scientist and found to be powder which weighed 446.25 grams in total, of which 27.59 grams were found to be pure methylamphetamine.

A contested committal hearing took place between 31 July 1989 and 3 August 1989. The applicant and four co-accused were committed for trial. On

Tuesday 29 May 1990 the applicant was arraigned before a County Court judge. He pleaded guilty to one count of trafficking in a drug of dependence.

On Wednesday 30 May 1990 the applicant was convicted of the offence and sentenced to be placed upon a Community Based Order for a period of two years with a requirement that he undertake 50 hours of community work. He was asked by the sentencing judge if he consented to entering into such an order. The applicant consented to do…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Croft

Details

AGLC: R v Croft [2008] VSCA 61
Case: [2008] VSCA 61
Decision Date: 17 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Croft involved the appellant, who was convicted of an offence and sought to appeal against that conviction. The application for an extension of time to appeal was brought before the court, which was required to determine whether the application should be granted. The primary issue before the court was whether the appellant had demonstrated exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time for lodging the appeal.

The court considered the principles that apply when assessing an application for an extension of time to appeal a conviction. These principles include whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in pursuing the appeal, whether there are any special circumstances that may have contributed to the delay, and whether the delay has caused any prejudice to the respondent. In this case, the court found that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate exceptional circumstances that justified an extension of time. The court held that the appellant's delay in lodging the appeal was not due to any fault on the part of the respondent or any other party, and that the delay had not caused any prejudice to the respondent.

Accordingly, the court refused the application for an extension of time to appeal. The court held that the appellant had not met the threshold for demonstrating exceptional circumstances, and that the application should be dismissed. The court's decision was based on a careful consideration of the principles that apply when assessing such applications, and the specific circumstances of this case. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders