R v Regazzoli

[2000] QCA 307
COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
THOMAS JA
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 124 of 2000

THE QUEEN

ANTHONY REGAZZOLI Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 01/08/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: In this appeal there is an application by
Mr Regazzoli, the appellant, for an adjournment of the matter. The application was foreshadowed on 26 July 2000 by a letter which Mr Regazzoli wrote to the Director of Public Prosecutions in these terms:

"Legal Aid was representing me and my appeal. However, I only received a letter from Legal Aid on Tuesday, 25 July informing me that they could not represent me as the appeal is set down for 1 August. It has left me no time for alternate means.

I have contacted solicitors A W Bale who are prepared to handle my appeal case, however, the present date of 1 August would be too soon for them to prepare submissions. I would ask that an extension of time within which to appeal would be given to my case."

The trial in question took place before her Honour Justice White in April this year and the notice of appeal, which was filed on 2 May, has the appearance of professional drafting. It takes only one ground and that is that certain evidence which was prejudicial should not have been admitted. That is, the conviction is challenged on that ground only. There is also a complaint that the sentence was excessive.

From what Mr Regazzoli has told us today of his contacts with the solicitors, A W Bale & Sons, it seems clear that the statement made on 26 July 2000 that he had then contacted the solicitors and that they were then prepared to handle his case is simply untrue.

The current situation appears to be that the solicitors may or may not be prepared to act in the matter, that presumably depending upon whether some funds can be found. The ground upon which the appeal is based, although comprehending it involves some study of the evidence, is not a complex ground and one which the Crown, represented by experienced and always helpful counsel, can assist us with.

In the circumstances of the case I would decline the application for adjournment and hear the appeal now.

THOMAS JA: Yes, I agree.

CHESTERMAN J: I agree.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Anthony Regazzoli, is seeking an adjournment of his appeal against a conviction and sentence imposed by Justice White in April 2000. The appeal was lodged on 2 May 2000 and only one ground is taken, namely that prejudicial evidence should not have been admitted, thereby challenging the conviction. Additionally, there is a complaint that the sentence was excessive. Regazzoli claims that he only recently learned that Legal Aid could not represent him, and that he contacted A W Bale & Sons who were prepared to handle his appeal, but the date set for 1 August 2000 was too soon for them to prepare submissions.

The Court of Appeal needed to decide whether the application for an adjournment should be granted. The appeal itself is not complex, and the Crown is willing to assist with the matter. The Court also noted that Regazzoli's claims regarding his recent contact with A W Bale & Sons were not entirely truthful.

The Court of Appeal declined to grant the application for an adjournment. Pincus JA noted that the ground of appeal, although involving some study of the evidence, is not a complex one, and the Crown could assist with the matter. Thomas JA and Chesterman J concurred with the decision to decline the application for an adjournment and proceed with the hearing of the appeal. The Court found that the current situation with A W Bale & Sons was uncertain, and the appeal could be heard without the need for an adjournment.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established