R v GP

[2005] QCA 11

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v GP [2005] QCA 11
PARTIES:	R v GP (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 258 of 2004 DC No 16 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against Conviction
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	7 February 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 February 2005
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Williams JA and Chesterman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.
ORDER:	Appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PARTICULAR GROUNDS – UNREASONABLE OR INSUPPORTABLE VERDICT – WHERE APPEAL DISMISSED – where appellant did not appear to prosecute appeal – where evidence provided ample basis for conviction – where an individual juror was discharged – whether the verdict was unreasonable or not supported by the evidence
COUNSEL:	The appellant did not appear S G Bain for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The appellant did not appear Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  When this appeal was listed it was on the basis the appellant was appearing for himself.  Indeed, the notice of appeal has been prepared by the appellant personally.  This morning the Registrar received a telephone call from the appellant.  The Registrar's note of the call reads:

"[GP] phoned at 9.20 a.m. from the Gold Coast.  He tried to arrange legal representation this morning but cannot afford the fee.  He will not be attending Court as he cannot get transport from the Gold Coast."

Of course, it is unacceptable that the appellant, if he was seeking legal representation, was attending to it only this morning and unacceptable in any event that he found himself unable to get from the Gold Coast to Brisbane if that, indeed, be the case in circumstances where he was plainly aware of the need to be here by 10 a.m. today.

It should be characterised, I believe, as a situation where the appellant is not reasonably prosecuting his appeal.  I should say that I have considered the record and the summing-up in the context of the notice of appeal.  The notice of appeal amounts to a contention that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.

The commission of the robbery was not denied, the appellant's only issue being whether he was the offender.  The evidence of MS, supported by the evidence of TS, in particular, provided ample basis for the conviction.  The issues upon which the appellant apparently relied by way of challenge to the prosecution case, especially going to the credibility of MS, were comprehensively canvassed before the jury.

There was a subsidiary point taken and that is that the trial Judge discharged one of the 12 jurors, but his Honour was plainly entitled, in law, to do that, and it was significant that the appellant's counsel agreed in that course.

My perusal of the record convinces me that the grounds of appeal which have been taken simply had no prospect of success but, in any event, as I have said, the appeal should be dismissed for the reason that the appellant has, without reasonable cause, chosen not to appear here today to prosecute his appeal.

I would order that the appeal be dismissed.

WILLIAMS JA:  I note that the applicant was born on the 17th of February 1987 meaning he was 16 years' of age at the time of the offence and 17 when sentenced.  He was dealt with as a juvenile.  He did apply for legal aid with respect to this appeal but that was refused on the 8th of November 2004.

In all the circumstances, I agree with the reasons given by the Chief Justice and with the order proposed.

CHESTERMAN J:  I also agree with the Chief Justice.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The appeal is dismissed.