R v Schmid Summary | CaseChat AU

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 439

PINCUS JA
de JERSEY J

WHITE J

CA No 254 of 1992
THE QUEEN
v.

JOHN MICHAEL SCHMID Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 22/10/92

..DAY 1

Applicant conducted his own case

MR P. RIDGWAY (instructed by the Director of Prosecutions) for the respondent

PINCUS JA: Mr Schmid, you’re appearing for yourself today, are you?

APPLICANT: Yes, Your Honour.

PINCUS JA: And what’s to happen with this case?

APPLICANT: I’m withdrawing my application.

PINCUS JA: It’s an application for leave to appeal against sentence, and you don’t want to pursue it any further?

APPLICANT: No.

PINCUS JA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

MR RIDGWAY: May it please Your Honour, may I just point out that on the papers there does appear also to be a conviction point mentioned in the notice of appeal, but not in the grounds. It may be useful to clarify that.

PINCUS JA: And you don’t want to raise an appeal against conviction either?

APPLICANT: No, Your Honour.

PINCUS JA: Very well. The appeal against conviction is dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Schmid was brought before the Queensland Court of Appeal. The applicant, John Michael Schmid, was appealing against both his conviction and sentence. The case was dismissed by the applicant himself during the hearing, who chose to withdraw his application for leave to appeal against both the sentence and conviction.

The legal issues before the court involved the applicant's right to appeal his conviction and sentence, and whether the court should grant leave for such an appeal. The court also had to consider whether the applicant, who was representing himself, had valid grounds for appeal and whether there were any grounds for the appeal that had not been adequately addressed in the original proceedings.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted that the applicant had withdrawn his application for leave to appeal. The court dismissed both the appeal against sentence and the appeal against conviction. The court emphasised that the applicant had not pursued the appeal and had effectively abandoned it. Additionally, the court observed that the notice of appeal mentioned a conviction point, which was not included in the grounds of appeal, and it was suggested that this should be clarified.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against both the conviction and sentence, with the dismissal being effective as the applicant withdrew the application. The court's decision underscored the importance of properly articulating the grounds of appeal and highlighted the consequences when an appellant chooses to abandon their appeal.

R v Schmid

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established