R v MAK

[2005] QCA 57

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v MAK [2005] QCA 57
PARTIES:	R v MAK (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 420 of 2004 DC No 390 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 March 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2005
JUDGES:	McPherson and Keane JJA and Douglas J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application to extend of time within which to appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PRACTICE: AFTER CRIMINAL APPEAL LEGISLATION – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE – EXTENSION OF TIME, NOTICE OF APPEAL AND ABANDONMENT – application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction refused because applicant had already exercised right of appeal
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C Heaton for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA:  The applicant seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction on each of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child under 16 years, four counts of rape and one count of attempted rape.  The offences occurred between September 1992 and February 1999.

The applicant was convicted after a trial on 18 September 2002.  Following his conviction the applicant appealed against the conviction.  That appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 31st January 2003.

The rule is that once someone has appealed against his conviction, and that appeal has been disposed of by dismissing it, he may not again exercise his right of appeal.  His right of appeal is then exhausted by the dismissal of that appeal and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal.

In these circumstances it would be futile to grant an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction because the inevitable outcome of such an extension would be that the appeal in question would be dismissed.

The applicant, who has appeared before us in person on land line, has informed us that his real interest is in putting before the Court the fact that he has been done a wrong.  He says it is due to either or all of corruption within the judicial system, the Government or the police. 
While this may be of interest to some, it does not confer on us a power to alter the rules which we apply here and which have the authority of the High Court and of this Court.

In the circumstances, the only course which we can take in this matter is to dismiss the application for an extension of time within which to appeal.

KEANE JA:  I agree with the order proposed by the learned presiding Judge for the reasons which he has given.

DOUGLAS J:  I agree.

McPHERSON JA:  The order of the Court is that the application to extend time within which to appeal is dismissed.

-----