R v Sheedy

99.379

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
AMBROSE J
CULLINANE J

CA No 258 of 1999

THE QUEEN

STEVEN JAMES SHEEDY Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 08/09/99

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction. The applicant was convicted on 22 June this year.

The application for an extension of time is not substantially out of time, a matter of days rather than months or years. But, of course, an application would not be granted if this Court thought that there was no substance in an appeal if an extension were granted.

The applicant has submitted a number of matters, nine in all, on which he relies as a basis for an appeal to this Court. Dealing with each of those in turn in brief - I do not intend to set them out in detail. The first deals with a knife. As the respondent has pointed out this is a speculative argument. It does not seem to raise any new matter and would not be appropriately a ground of appeal.

The second appears to be a requirement by the applicant that he be permitted to give further evidence, or give evidence, about what he thought at the relevant time. It is not fresh evidence and therefore would not be an appropriate subject for adducing evidence on appeal.

The third matter relates to what the police may have said. It is not appropriately a matter of evidence and would not be permitted on an appeal.

The fourth matter relates to the absence of what the applicant describes as a toxicology report. What he submits is speculation as to what such report, if it had been given, may possibly have disclosed but there is no evidence to suggest anything in support of that.

The fifth matter refers to the possibility that there may have been some witness not called by the Crown who may have been able to give relevant evidence. But no witness has been produced and the nature of that evidence is not adverted to.

The sixth matter is a suggestion about a tape recorder that may possibly have been activated at the relevant time and if it had been it may have indicated what took place. Again that is purely a matter of speculation and is not something which would justify an extension of time within which to appeal.

The seventh matter relates to the possibility that the deceased may have been armed before entering the room. That seems to me to be entirely irrelevant.

The eighth matter relates to the possibility that the applicant may have inflicted only some but not all of the wounds. It appears to be speculative and, in any event, irrelevant.

And the final matter is a reference to a towel. The applicant is speculating as to the fact that blood from only one source was found on it or blood from another source may have been found on it. But whatever is contained in this submission in this respect is speculative and, again, not the subject of evidence.

None of the matters therefore are appropriate matters for consideration on appeal and for that reason I would refuse the application for an extension of time.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

CULLINANE J: I agree also.

DAVIES JA: The application is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Steven James Sheedy, sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction in the Court of Appeal. The application was made shortly after Sheedy's conviction on 22 June 1999, and the court was tasked with determining whether the application was within an acceptable timeframe and whether there was sufficient substance in the grounds of appeal to justify the extension. The applicant presented nine matters as potential grounds for appeal, including speculative arguments about a knife, the absence of a toxicology report, and the possibility of unidentified witnesses or evidence. The court found that none of these matters were appropriate grounds for appeal, as they were speculative and not supported by evidence. Consequently, the court decided that the application for an extension of time should be refused.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the timeliness of the application for an extension of time and determining whether the proposed grounds for appeal were valid and substantial. The court had to consider whether the application was within a reasonable timeframe and whether the grounds presented by Sheedy had merit. The court needed to ensure that the extension of time was not granted merely because of a minor delay, but rather because there was a genuine basis for an appeal. The court also had to evaluate whether the speculative and unsubstantiated arguments presented by Sheedy constituted valid grounds for appeal.

The court examined each of the nine matters presented by Sheedy in turn and found that none of them were appropriate grounds for appeal. The court concluded that the arguments were speculative and not supported by evidence, and thus did not provide a substantial basis for an appeal. The court emphasized that the extension of time would only be granted if there was a reasonable chance that the appeal would succeed on the merits. Given the speculative nature of Sheedy's arguments and the lack of substantive evidence to support them, the court determined that there was no substance in the appeal. Consequently, the application for an extension of time was refused.

In summary, the Court of Appeal held that the application for an extension of time was not substantially out of time but found that there was no substance in the appeal based on the speculative and unsubstantiated arguments presented by Sheedy. The court found none of the nine matters to be appropriate grounds for appeal, and therefore, the application was refused. The court's decision was unanimous, with all judges agreeing that the application should be dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established