R v Leach - [2017] QCA 53

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Leach [2017] QCA 53

PARTIES:

R
v
LEACH, Jeffery Francis
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 227 of 2016
DC No 484 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 22 January 2004

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 November 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the convictions is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was sentenced to terms of 6, 12 and 18 months’ imprisonment on two counts of stalking and one of wilful damage in January 2004 – where the applicant successfully appealed against his sentences on the two counts of stalking in June 2004 but did not then claim to be innocent of the charges – where more than 12 years then passed before the applicant sought to set aside all three convictions – where the applicant contended that his lawyer wrongly advised him to plead guilty – where the applicant explained his delay by reference to poverty, medical and mental health treatment and his attempts to contact members of the executive government to commute or overturn his sentence – where those attempts were wholly unsuccessful – where the applicant did not establish that his convictions upon his guilty pleas were the result of a miscarriage of justice and the applicant’s prospects on appeal were correspondingly weak – whether the application for extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal should be granted

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied
R v EJ[2009] QCA 378, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D R Kinsella for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of McMurdo JA and the order proposed by his Honour.
MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of McMurdo JA and agree with those reasons and the order his Honour proposes.
McMURDO JA: In the District Court in November 2003, the applicant was arraigned upon three counts: one of stalking, a further one of stalking with a circumstance of aggravation and one of wilfully and wilfully and unlawfully damaging a motor vehicle. He pleaded guilty to each and his sentence hearing was adjourned to enable a pre‑sentence report to be prepared. In January 2004 he was sentenced to three concurrent terms of 12 months, 18 months and six months respectively.
The applicant successfully appealed against his sentences on the two counts of stalking. On 2 June 2004 this Court set aside those sentences because the sentencing judge…

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 Leach

Details

AGLC: R v Leach [2017] QCA 53
Case: [2017] QCA 53
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the applicant, Leach, who had been sentenced to imprisonment on three counts in January 2004. He had successfully appealed against his sentences on two counts of stalking in June 2004, but did not claim innocence at that time. Over twelve years later, Leach sought to set aside all three convictions, arguing that his lawyer had wrongly advised him to plead guilty. Leach attributed his delay in challenging the convictions to his poverty, medical and mental health issues, and unsuccessful attempts to have his sentence commuted or overturned by the executive government. The court had to determine whether to grant Leach's application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant's significant delay in challenging his convictions, coupled with the weak prospects of success on appeal, justified an extension of the time in which to file a Notice of Appeal. The court needed to weigh the reasons provided by Leach for the delay against the principle that appeals should be heard in a timely manner to ensure the finality and efficiency of the legal process.

The court found that Leach had not demonstrated that his convictions resulted from a miscarriage of justice. It was noted that Leach had not claimed innocence when he appealed against his sentences on the stalking charges, and his prospects of success on appeal were weak. The court held that the delay was excessive and could not be sufficiently explained by Leach's circumstances, and that granting the extension would not serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal was refused.

No further orders were made beyond the refusal of the application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the convictions is refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Leach [2017] QCA 53
PARTIES:	R v LEACH, Jeffery Francis (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 227 of 2016 DC No 484 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Cairns – Date of Conviction: 22 January 2004
DELIVERED ON:	31 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 November 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison and McMurdo JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against the convictions is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant was sentenced to terms of 6, 12 and 18 months’ imprisonment on two counts of stalking and one of wilful damage in January 2004 – where the applicant successfully appealed against his sentences on the two counts of stalking in June 2004 but did not then claim to be innocent of the charges – where more than 12 years then passed before the applicant sought to set aside all three convictions – where the applicant contended that his lawyer wrongly advised him to plead guilty – where the applicant explained his delay by reference to poverty, medical and mental health treatment and his attempts to contact members of the executive government to commute or overturn his sentence – where those attempts were wholly unsuccessful – where the applicant did not establish that his convictions upon his guilty pleas were the result of a miscarriage of justice and the applicant’s prospects on appeal were correspondingly weak – whether the application for extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal should be granted Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, applied R v EJ[2009] QCA 378, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D R Kinsella for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent