R v De Jackson
[1992] QCA 295
•7/09/1992
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 295
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 135 of 1992
T H E Q U E E N
v.
GEOFFREY PAUL DE JACKSON
(Applicant)
The President
Mr. Justice Pincus
Mr. Justice Lee
Judgment of the Court delivered on
the Seventh day of September 1992.
APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN
WHICH TO APPEAL IS REFUSED.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 135 of 1992
Before the Court of Appeal
The President
Mr Justice Pincus
Mr Justice Lee
T H E Q U E E N
v.
GEOFFREY PAUL DE JACKSON
(Applicant)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Delivered the Seventh day of September 1992
MINUTES:
APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO APPEAL IS
REFUSED.
CATCHWORDS:
Counsel:G. De Jackson in person.
P. Rutledge for the Crown.
Solicitors:Director of Prosecutions.
Hearing Date:14th July 1992.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 135 of 1992
T H E Q U E E N
v.
GEOFFREY PAUL DE JACKSON
(Applicant)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
Delivered the Seventh day of September 1992.
The applicant by notice dated 29th April 1992, seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction on 14th November 1991 for murder. The notice of appeal in Form 3 is also dated 29th April 1992 and was received by the
Registrar of the Supreme Court by post on 5th May 1992. The
twenty-eight day period from 14th November 1991 within which a
right to appeal existed, expired on 12th December 1991, so that this application is approximately four and a half months out of
time.
In the notice of appeal seeking an extension of time, the applicant states that well within the twenty-eight day period, he made four attempts to have processed through Correctional
Centre staff and the Queensland Legal Aid Office, a number of
notice of appeal applications. He does not expressly state that he signed and lodged notices of appeal within the twenty-eight
day period, although that is the effect of Ground 1, when read with Ground 3. Ground 2 states that he had been advised on each occasion that the respective applications were either lost or mislaid and that the current application, dated 29th April 1992, is the fifth application he has prepared. In oral submissions,
he affirmed the foregoing steps.
In his affidavit sworn 13th July 1992, the applicant
deposed to the following history. On the morning of 15th
November 1991, prior to his transfer from the Brisbane
Correctional Centre to Moreton Correctional Centre, his
solicitor Mr. Patrick Murphy advised him that he had twenty- eight days in which to appeal against his conviction. On arrival at the Moreton Correctional Centre he contacted Mary Crombie a correctional counsellor with the Corrective Services
Commission who provided him with the necessary forms and advised
him that she was unable to assist with the details. He was left
to his own devices and was told, "Just fill in the standard
details and send it to Patrick Murphy with a covering letter
saying what you think are the reasons for appeal". He said that the covering letter specified two issues, the first was that he
was of the opinion that there was "trial by media". The second was that "The Crown witness Stephen Reidy is a liar, and I can prove it". This information was posted to Patrick Murphy on
Tuesday 19th November 1991. Later that week he rang Patrick
Murphy who advised that he had forwarded the appeal forms and
covering letter on to the Legal Aid Office. He also advised the applicant that he would no longer have any dealings in the matter.
Following this advice he contacted the Legal Aid Office and requested that someone visit him at the Moreton Correctional Centre. On asking if the office had received the appeal forms
and covering letter from Patrick Murphy, he was advised that this would have to be checked out with other staff. He was
advised that someone from the Legal Aid Office would attend the
Centre at a convenient time. No date was set for such a visit.
As no response had occurred a week later, he contacted Mary
Crombie and filled out another appeal form with the same
details. He forwarded these to the Legal Aid Office. On 9th
December 1991 he was transferred from the Moreton Correctional
Centre to Sir David Longland Correctional Centre. On arrival he
contacted Job Alexis, correctional counsellor for the Correctional Services Commission. By this time there was still
no response to the first two applications and the third one was drawn up and forwarded to the Legal Aid Office. During the
first week at this Centre, he made a further telephone contact
with Legal Aid and spoke with a person whose surname is either Sant or Vant. He was told by the person he spoke to that she
would have to check out details of what had happened to his application. In April 1992 a representative from the Legal Aid Office came to see him at the Sir David Longland Correctional
Centre. He was advised by this person that he was required to
fill out another form. He did this in her presence but cannot
recall this person's name. On 26th April 1992 he approached a fellow prisoner who had some understanding of these matters and
filled out another Appeal Form 3 and an Application for Extension of Time Form 4. This is the fifth appeal application
and the documents presently before this court.
On 19th May 1992 the Legal Aid Office wrote and informed
him that a barrister was being briefed before aid could be
granted and that their office was awaiting the appeal record
book. On that date Mr. Tim Harland of the Legal Aid Office
wrote to him and advised that it was considered to be in his interests to seek the opinion of a barrister experienced in the
appellate jurisdiction before any decision was made as to the grant of aid. This is confirmed by a letter (appendix 1 to his
affidavit) from the Legal Aid Office dated 19th May 1992. Finally, he stated that on Wednesday 8th July 1992, Mr. Andrew
Boe solicitor, telephoned the Registry Supreme Court Office and
was advised that he had been granted legal aid.
The applicant did not leave any notice of appeal or any application to the Court of Criminal Appeal with the Superintendent of the goal where he was imprisoned or with any
other officer of that goal, within the twenty-eight day period.
Had he done so, this would have amounted to service of a notice
within time pursuant to O. IX r. 43(d) of the Criminal Practice
Rules of 1900.
Counsel for the Crown, in opposing the application, stated
that no record was obtained of the earlier applications and that
Mary Crombie, who had been contacted, had no recollection of
receiving documents from the applicant. Counsel submitted that
there was a strong circumstantial case against the applicant.
In circumstances such as this, it is necessary to consider whether or not the applicant has any arguable grounds of appeal against his conviction. He asked that he be given another trial. The grounds referred to in Form 3 are as follows:
"1.There was a substantial miscarriage of justice in that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and should not be allowed to stand.
2.Crucial evidence for the defence particularly regarding the Crown evidence of Stephen Reidy (correctional officer) was never called and made available to the court.
3.Leave may be sought to file further or amended grounds of
appeal."
The applicant informed the court that the reason for
Ground 1 was that there was considerable pre-trial publicity in
the "Courier-Mail" and in some local newspapers including a
paper called "Blazers". He said that a lot of information
published was untrue, that he was made out to be a monster, and
that he was a Torres Strait islander. He said, however, that
notwithstanding this publicity there was a fair trial. His complaint was that the publicity before the trial may have influenced the jury.
As to Ground 2, evidence was given at the trial by Stephen
William Reidy. A copy of this evidence has been furnished to
the court. Reidy said that he overheard several other prisoners
who had walked to the applicant's cell, say to him, "You're a sick cunt for cutting her head off", to which according to Mr. Reidy, the applicant, who was clutching a Bible in his hands
said, "I didn't mean to do it". The applicant claimed that this was a lie and that the other prisoners who were allegedly present if called would say that the applicant did not make the
statement attributed to him by Reidy.
The applicant also said that he wanted to give evidence at
the trial but was advised against it by his counsel. He also
said that he did not come forward with certain information available to him at the beginning of the investigation because he feared for his safety. He said that he had seen something in
the deceased's handbag which indicated that she might have been
a drug courier.
Because of the main complaint relating to pre-trial
publicity, the court allowed the applicant a period of fourteen
days to place before the court copies of any pre-trial publicity
of which he made complaint and also requested counsel for the Crown to produce copies of any pre-trial publicity which the
Crown could reasonably discover. This included videos of
television reports as well as newspaper articles. It was then
indicated that the court would consider such additional material
before coming to its decision.
The applicant lodged a further affidavit sworn on 27th July
1992 exhibiting copies of various newspaper articles and also a
letter from the Brisbane Correctional Centre to him dated
1st November 1991 stating that no records exist which could give
the names of other inmates in the appropriate yard at material
times. The applicant stated that he has been unable to
ascertain the names of these other inmates. He asserted however that they were interviewed by the police and "not one remembered
me saying anything in relation to the murder, even though they
were offered inducement to do so".
Also a folder of all media publicity both pre-trial and during the trial was made available by the Crown along with videos of television news items from the principal television stations.
All of the publicity material furnished by the applicant and by the Crown has been examined by the court. Much of it relates to proceedings at and subsequent to the trial. The court has come to the clear view that the pre-trial publicity was not exceptional. It was of a type and nature such as might reasonably be expected in an investigation of this sort. The deceased went missing and her headless body was discovered some
days later wrapped in garbage bags in bushland near Ashgrove.
It has not been established that any of this publicity might
have unduly influenced the jury or that the trial Judge did not issue the standard warnings to the jury during his summing up,
or that the jury would have ignored any such usual directions countenancing them to put out of their minds anything they might have heard outside the court room concerning the applicant or of
any of the circumstances surrounding the case.
The witness Reidy was cross-examined at the trial. He re-affirmed in the clearest of terms that the applicant made the remarks attributed to him, notwithstanding that he was directly challenged on this point. There seems to be no reasonable possibility that the other prisoners the applicant referred to
can be traced, either by himself or by prison authorities. It is difficult to see on what basis he could make the assertions
that the police interviewed these inmates and not one remembered
him saying anything in relation to the murder. He did not elect
to give evidence at his trial. He was represented at the trial
by counsel experienced in the conduct of criminal proceedings.
It appears from the outline of submissions by the Crown
that the case against the applicant was a strong circumstantial
one. The Crown case was that the applicant lived with the deceased female and that he killed her with some sharp weapon at
their home and then dumped her decapitated body in garbage bags
at the Ashgrove quarry. The offence was committed on 20th May 1991. It appears that prior to 19th May 1991 the relationship
between the applicant and the deceased had deteriorated and on
that day a loud verbal argument was heard coming from the
applicant's and deceased's house around midnight. They were observed fighting in the hallway of the house. At about 6 a.m. a scream was heard by witnesses and no other sounds of fighting afterwards. Three days later the deceased's dismembered body wrapped in green garbage bags was found at the Ashgrove quarry.
On the morning of 20th May 1991, a neighbour watched the applicant carrying white and green garbage bags to the boot of a silver hatch-back sedan owned by a friend who lent the vehicle to the applicant. On that day tools which screened positive for
the presence of blood were found wrapped in a car mat identified
by the car owner as coming from his car, and dumped on the side
of the road in Bardon. The applicant's fingerprints were found in the car as well as significant amounts of blood in the boot
and around the driver's seat. The boot blood was either the deceased's blood or one in every eighteen hundred (1800) of the
community and was in such quantities that the person who bled could not possibly be alive. Significant amounts of blood were found in the house which were also connected with the blood of the deceased. A fragment of bone with blood consistent with
that of the deceased on it was also found in the house.
When interviewed by police on 21st May 1991, the applicant
gave a detailed version of events which included admissions that
no one else used that vehicle on the Sunday night or Monday morning but himself, that he used the vehicle to dump white plastic bags full of rubbish on the Monday morning, and that the
relationship between himself and the deceased had completely
broken down and she had requested his departure.
It is clear that the applicant has shown no reasonably arguable ground of appeal. In all of the circumstances of the case, application for an extension of time within which to appeal is refused.
0
0
0