R v S

Case [1998] QCA 178


[1998] QCA 178

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
DERRINGTON J
WHITE J

CA No 18 of 1998

THE QUEEN

v.

S  Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 05/05/98

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA:  This is an application to extend the time for appealing against a conviction of the applicant on an indictment charging him with rape.  The delay is a problem for the applicant and it is not inconsiderable, but there appears to be a plausible explanation for it.  If that were the only matter affecting the question, then I, for one, would be favourably disposed to grant the application to extend time.

The applicant's real difficulty is that there is nothing in any material we have been able to look at to suggest that there is any arguable basis for supposing the conviction was not correct.  It seems, in the end, that the applicant did not deny that he had sexual intercourse with the complainant, who was a 14 year old girl and a relative, in the way of being a second cousin of the applicant.

His case at the trial, which involved him giving evidence himself, appears to have been that she consented to what was done.  When reference is made to the injuries, of which there was medical evidence, which she has suffered, it appears extremely unlikely that that state of affairs was as he says it was; in other words, it is improbable that a girl of that age would have consented to having done to her those things that the applicant was alleged to have done.

In my view, the jury could have been in no doubt about the issue in the case.  They arrived at their verdict on the basis of the evidence before them, after hearing all relevant witnesses.  Without there being presented to us any material to make us doubt that the applicant was correctly convicted, I can see no basis on which we could grant this application.

I should add that the applicant also has on foot an application for leave to appeal against sentence.  It was, it seems, lodged in time and there is no question about it on this occasion.  It will no doubt come before this Court in due course.  For my part, however, I can see nothing capable of persuading us to extend the time so as to enable the applicant to argue an appeal against conviction which, on the face of it, is doomed to fail.  I would therefore dismiss the application.

DERRINGTON J:  I agree.

WHITE J:  I agree.

McPHERSON JA:  The order of the Court is that the application to extend time within which to appeal against conviction is dismissed.

Details
AGLC
R v S [1998] QCA 178
Case
[1998] QCA 178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v S is an application for an extension of time to appeal against a conviction on a charge of rape. The applicant, referred to as S, sought to extend the time limit for appealing the conviction. The Court of Appeal, consisting of McPherson JA, Derrington J, and White J, heard the application. The primary issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant's request to extend the time for appealing against the conviction due to the delay in filing the application. The court also needed to consider if there was any arguable basis for the appeal.

The court considered the significant delay in the application but noted that there was a plausible explanation provided. However, the critical issue was the lack of any material suggesting that the conviction was incorrect. The applicant did not dispute engaging in sexual intercourse with the complainant, who was a 14-year-old relative. The applicant's defense was that the complainant consented to the sexual acts. Despite the medical evidence of injuries sustained by the complainant, it was highly improbable that a girl of that age would have consented to the acts as alleged. The jury had arrived at their verdict based on the evidence presented during the trial. Without any material to doubt the correctness of the conviction, the court saw no basis to grant the application for an extension of time.

The court concluded that the appeal against the conviction seemed doomed to fail due to the lack of any arguable basis. The court also noted that the applicant had an application for leave to appeal against the sentence, which was lodged in time and would be considered separately. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application to extend the time for appealing against the conviction.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.