R v Ran Summary | CaseChat AU

[2013] QCA 61

COURT OF APPEAL

FRASER JA
MARGARET WILSON J
DOUGLAS J

CA No 304 of 2012
DC No 31 of 2012
DC No 32 of 2012

THE QUEEN

RAN Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 27/03/2013

JUDGMENT

FRASER JA: The applicant was convicted after a trial of two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16; the second count with a circumstance of aggravation, that the child was under his care. He then pleaded guilty to two further counts, a count of indecent treatment of a child under 16 and a count of digital rape. His convictions date from 29 June 2012 when he was also sentenced.

The applicant has applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against his convictions. The application was not filed until the 14th of November 2012. It is, however, dated on the 16th of September 2012, as is the accompanying proposed notice of appeal against conviction.

The applicant has given an explanation for his delay. It appears that he was in some difficulty and under close observation in prison after his convictions. There was then a mistake in which he sent the forms to Legal Aid and they had to be sent back to him and subsequently to the Court. In my opinion the explanation for the delay is satisfactory.

The applicant makes various contentions about what he submits are errors in the way in which the trial was conducted. They really raise questions of the competent conduct of the trial by his legal representatives, and he also asserts in general terms that he pleaded under some considerable pressure. It is not really practicable on the current material for the Court to assess the merits of these matters, but in view of the fact that there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay, in my opinion it is appropriate to grant the extension of time to enable the matters properly to be investigated.

Accordingly, the order which I favour is that an extension of time within which to appeal be granted.

MARGARET WILSON J: I agree.

DOUGLAS J: I agree also.

FRASER JA: That is the order of the Court.

FRASER JA: The order of the Court is that time be extended within which to appeal until 14 November 2012, which was the date upon which the application and the notice of appeal were filed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case was convicted on two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16, and two further counts of indecent treatment and digital rape. The applicant has applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against his convictions, which were handed down on 29 June 2012. The application was filed on 14 November 2012, but dated 16 September 2012, as was the accompanying proposed notice of appeal. The applicant has provided an explanation for the delay, stating that he was under close observation in prison and that there was a mistake involving the forms being sent to Legal Aid before being returned to him and subsequently to the Court.

The court was required to determine whether the explanation for the delay was satisfactory and whether it was appropriate to grant the extension of time. The applicant also raised various contentions about what he submitted were errors in the conduct of the trial, and the pressure he was under when he pleaded guilty. However, the court found it not practicable to assess the merits of these matters on the current material.

The court considered the explanation for the delay to be satisfactory and granted the extension of time to enable the matters to be properly investigated. The court found that it was appropriate to grant the extension of time given the satisfactory explanation provided by the applicant. The court granted the extension of time within which to appeal until 14 November 2012, the date upon which the application and the notice of appeal were filed.

R v Ran

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established