R v S

[2000] QCA 87

[R v S]  [2000] QCA 87

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

CA No 384 of 1999

THE QUEEN

v.

S  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/03/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA:  The applicant was convicted of incest and indecent dealing and sentenced on 2 June last year to six years' imprisonment.  On 28 June he signed a notice of appeal against conviction on the ground that the conviction was unsafe and a notice of abandonment was filed on
5 October 1999.  On 13 November 1999 the applicant filed a further notice of appeal on a ground which I should read out:

"During my trial a jury was picked of which I knew four of the members empanelled.  I pointed this out to my solicitor.  He didn't act.  I believe that this is a travesty of justice and I was not given a fair trial plus I did not get to pick my jury."

Now, the address which the applicant has given us today expands on that slightly, but leaves the matter in essence the same as it was; namely that he says he did not get a fair trial because he knew some members of the jury.  To that the applicant has added a complaint about the mode of sentencing.  He says that his counsel did not have drawn to the Court's attention some references from friends and family; that appears to be related to the sentence which was imposed.

In my opinion, in an appropriate case, despite the lapse of time and the abandonment of the former appeal, if it were clear that to do otherwise would achieve a gross injustice, this Court might well have jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal. 

There is nothing here to suggest a gross or indeed any injustice and in my opinion the application which is in essence one for an extension of time should be refused.

McPHERSON JA:  I agree.

DAVIES JA:  I agree.

PINCUS JA:  The application is refused.

-----