R v S

[R v S] [2000] QCA 87

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

CA No 384 of 1999

THE QUEEN

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.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v S, the applicant, who was convicted of incest and indecent dealing, appealed against his conviction and sentence in the Court of Appeal. The applicant claimed that he did not receive a fair trial because he knew some members of the jury and that his counsel failed to draw to the court's attention references from friends and family in relation to his sentence. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the applicant's application for an extension of time to appeal was valid and if it was in the interests of justice to grant the application. The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's complaints about the jury and the sentence and found that there was no gross injustice. The Court held that, despite the lapse of time and the abandonment of the former appeal, it might have jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal in an appropriate case. However, in this case, the Court found that there was no reason to grant the application, which was essentially one for an extension of time. The Court of Appeal, therefore, dismissed the applicant's application. Pincus JA, McPherson JA, and Davies JA all agreed with the decision to dismiss the application. The Court's decision was based on the principle that an extension of time to appeal should only be granted in exceptional circumstances where there has been a miscarriage of justice or other compelling reason. In this case, the Court found that the applicant's complaints did not amount to a miscarriage of justice and that there was no other compelling reason to grant the application. The Court also noted that the applicant had abandoned his former appeal, which further weakened his case for an extension of time. The Court's decision in R v S highlights the importance of timely and diligent legal representation in criminal cases. The Court found that the applicant's complaints about the jury and the sentence were not sufficient grounds for an extension of time to appeal, and that the applicant had failed to act promptly in pursuing his appeal. The Court's decision also emphasizes the importance of following legal procedures and timelines in order to preserve the right to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established