R v Merritt - [2003] NSWCCA 14

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: REGINA v. MERRITT [2003] NSWCCA 14

FILE NUMBER(S):
No. 60631 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 11 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE: 11/02/2003

PARTIES:
REGINA v.
MERRITT, Noel Joseph

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Greg James J Kirby J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 96/11/0418

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Luland, DCJ.

COUNSEL:
Crown: D. Frearson
App: In person

SOLICITORS:
Crown: S.E. O'Connor
App: In person

CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - appeal against conviction - application for extension of time - armed robbery - long delay before application - no merit in application - application refused.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Criminal Appeal Act 1912

DECISION:
The application for extension of time is refused.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

No. 60204 of 2002
MASON, P.
GREG JAMES, J.
KIRBY, J.
TUESDAY 11 FEBRUARY 2003

REGINA v. NOEL JOSEPH MERRITT

Judgment

GREG JAMES, J: The applicant, Noel Joseph Merritt, seeks an extension of time to appeal against his convictions on two counts in the Sydney District Court following a trial commencing on 6 March 2000 and concluding on 17 March 2000. Those counts were one of steal motor vehicle on or about 13 September 1995, and one count of attempted armed robbery with wounding on 13 September 1995.
The sentences imposed in respect of those convictions were examined in a decision of this court on 13 September 2000 following a Crown appeal against their asserted inadequacy. In lieu of the sentence imposed by the trial judge for the armed robbery offence, a sentence of 18 years commencing on 2 June 1999 was imposed. An overall non-parole period of one and a half years commencing on that date was imposed.
This was not the applicant's first trial in respect of these matters. He had come forward for trial at the Sydney District Court in August 1997 when he was convicted of both of the offences. Following that trial, there was an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal brought by him which was successful. That appeal was determined on 10 March 1999. The reasons of the court were delivered by the Chief Judge at Common Law, Wood, J., and therein his Honour examined questions relating to the sentence and the criminal history of the applicant. These were matters that had to be considered in relation to the modification of other sentences he was serving in consequence of the appeal being allowed.
His Honour made the following remarks:-
"Should the appellant be retried and again convicted, the sentences then to be imposed will need to take into account the principle of totality. However, we would not wish that anything that we have said to lead the court then charged with the duty of sentencing the appellant to assume that the sentences passed by the District Court in respect of the outstanding charges were appropriate. To the contrary, we are of the view that the argument that they were unjustifiably lenient to be a strong one in…

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 Merritt

Details

AGLC: R v Merritt [2003] NSWCCA 14
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 14
Decision Date: 11 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Merritt involved the appellant, who was convicted of armed robbery, seeking to appeal against his conviction. The application for an extension of time to lodge the appeal was made several months after the usual deadline. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time should be granted, given the substantial delay and the lack of any merit in the application.

The court considered the extensive delay in lodging the application for an extension of time, which was a significant factor against granting the application. The appellant provided no compelling reason for the delay, nor did he demonstrate any merit in his application for an extension. The court emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural deadlines and the need to maintain the integrity of the legal process. The appellant's failure to provide any valid grounds for an extension further undermined the application.

In light of the foregoing, the court held that the application for an extension of time was without merit and refused the application. The court reiterated that delays in legal proceedings, especially those as substantial as the one in this case, are generally not countenanced unless there are exceptional circumstances, which were absent here. The appeal against the conviction was therefore dismissed on the basis of the late application for an extension of time.

The court did not grant the application for an extension of time and dismissed the appeal against conviction. The appellant's conviction for armed robbery remained in place.

Orders