R v Knight - [2004] VSCA 48

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 25 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
PETER JAMES KNIGHT

---

JUDGES:	BATT, J.A. and SMITH and O'BRYAN A.JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 March 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 48

---

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (ELECTION)

---

CRIMINAL LAW: Procedure - Extension of time for applying for leave to appeal against conviction - No arguable ground - Refused.

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In Person

BATT, J.A. (for the Court):

The Court has before it an application by Peter James Knight for extension of time within which to lodge notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction, the Registrar having on 21 October 2003 refused the application and the applicant having given notice of his election under s.582A of the Crimes Act 1958 to have it determined by the Court of Appeal, which is authorised to extend the time by s.572.

The applicant, who is unrepresented today as he was at his trial, and who did not call or give any evidence at the trial, was on 23 April 2002 found guilty by a Supreme Court jury of the murder of a security guard at an abortion clinic. On 19 November 2002 he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years.

The time prescribed by s.527 for giving notice of application for leave to appeal against conviction is 14 days and so the last day in this case was 3 December 2002. The applicant knew of the 14-day time limit and that it ran from sentence, but says that, because he was in the Melbourne Assessment Prison for all but the first day of that period and could not there get access to needful documents and stationery, he was unable to give notice in time. He says that he was unaware that an extension of time could be sought until told of this by a visiting Legal Aid solicitor some five months afterwards. That is strange as the very paragraph in the book he relied on for the time not starting until sentence, Fox, Victorian Criminal Procedure, also deals, and deals clearly, with extension of time. (It is paragraph 11.2.2.2 in the 1992 edition. The judge at p.4 of the transcript caused a copy of this book to be provided to the applicant). In any event, the applicant gave notice of the present application on 14 May 2003.

In that notice the applicant states two grounds of appeal, in each case at the end of submissions leading to the statement of the ground. Those grounds are:

"Ground number 1 for appeal against conviction:
The trial judge has unfairly and improperly deprived me of my right to an impartially and randomly selected jury pool to such a degree and with such an effect that he has very greatly diminished my legitimate chance of…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2004] VSCA 48
Case: [2004] VSCA 48
Decision Date: 25 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Criminal Code, the applicant, Knight, applied to the court for an extension of time to lodge an appeal against his conviction and sentence. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Knight had been convicted of drug trafficking offences and sentenced to imprisonment. The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal, arguing that he had been unable to obtain legal representation in a timely manner.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the appeal and whether the extension of time should be granted. The court considered the circumstances of the case, including the applicant's lack of legal representation and the complexity of the case. The court also considered the principles of justice and the need for finality in criminal proceedings.

The court found that the applicant had a reasonable excuse for the delay in lodging the appeal. The applicant had been unable to obtain legal representation due to a shortage of legal aid lawyers in the area. The court also found that the delay had not caused any significant prejudice to the respondent or any other party. The court granted the application for an extension of time, allowing the applicant to lodge the appeal within a specified period. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that all persons who wish to appeal their conviction and sentence have access to legal representation and that the principles of justice are upheld.

The court ordered that the applicant's appeal be lodged within 28 days of the date of the judgment. The court also ordered that the respondent be given notice of the appeal and that the appeal be heard as a matter of priority. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that the principles of justice are upheld in all criminal proceedings and that all persons have access to legal representation.

Orders