R v Pitt - [2001] VSCA 67

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 119 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ANTHONY JAMES PITT

---

APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF APPLICATION:	14 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 May 2001 REVISED 28 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	VSCA [2001] 67

---

Criminal law - Procedure - Application to extend time for appealing against conviction - Application previously refused by Registrar - Principles to be applied - Procedure to be followed by Registrar discussed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A.Coghlan,Q.C.	S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	In person

WINNEKE, P. (delivering judgment of the Court):

In this case the applicant, Anthony James Pitt, who is currently aged 44 years, applies to this Court to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal against convictions recorded against him on 16 December 1999. The applicant had pleaded guilty to one count of false imprisonment and two counts of rape, it being agreed that the first count of rape was representative in character. In respect of the sentence on the second count of rape the judge treated the applicant as a serious sexual offender in view of the fact that he had been previously sentenced to imprisonment for a relevant sexual offence. After hearing a plea, during the course of which the sentencing judge heard evidence from Dr Walton and read a report from Dr Senadipathy, he sentenced the applicant to 5 years on the count of unlawful imprisonment, 12 years on the first count of rape (the representative count) and 6 years on the second count of rape. His Honour ordered cumulation of 6 years of the sentence on the first count of rape and the whole of the 6 years imposed on the second rape offence upon the 5 years imposed for the offence of unlawful imprisonment. This produced a total effective sentence of 17 years' imprisonment, and his Honour directed that the applicant serve a period of 15 years before becoming eligible for parole.

It is unnecessary for this Court to revisit the circumstances in which the offences were committed, save to say that it is very difficult to think of worse circumstances of rape than those which confronted the sentencing judge.

On 20 December 1999 the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed. That application has yet to be heard. However, on 15 May 2000 the applicant lodged with the Registrar an application to extend the time within which he might apply for leave to appeal against his convictions. He claims in his notice that he was mentally ill and not in a good frame of mind at the time when he pleaded guilty, and also that he was "under duress" which led him to form the view that he wanted to get out of the court and the Ballarat cells as quickly as possible. He now says that he wishes to challenge…

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 Pitt

Details

AGLC: R v Pitt [2001] VSCA 67
Case: [2001] VSCA 67
Decision Date: 14 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pitt involved the appellant, who had been convicted of certain criminal offences, applying to the court for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction. The application was initially refused by the Registrar, and the appellant sought further review. The matter was brought before the court to determine the correct principles and procedures that should be applied when considering such an application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Registrar had correctly applied the principles and procedures when initially refusing the appellant's application to extend time for appealing against his conviction. The court was tasked with reviewing the application process and the criteria that the Registrar should have considered when determining the merits of the appellant's application.

The court examined the relevant legal principles and procedures that should be followed when an application to extend time for appealing against a conviction is made. It was determined that the Registrar should have taken into account several factors, including whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for the delay, whether there were any prospects of success on the appeal, and whether the appellant's rights would be prejudiced if the application were to be refused. The court held that the Registrar had not adequately considered these factors and had therefore erred in law when refusing the application. The court also outlined the proper procedure for the Registrar to follow in such cases, including the need to provide reasons for the decision and to consider any relevant evidence or submissions made by the appellant.

Based on the court's findings, the appeal against the Registrar's decision was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Registrar for reconsideration in light of the court's directions. The Registrar was required to apply the correct principles and procedures when making a decision on the appellant's application to extend time for appealing against his conviction. No further orders were made by the court in relation to the substantive appeal against the conviction.

Orders