R v Sheedy

[1999] QCA 379

99.379

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
AMBROSE J
CULLINANE J

CA No 258 of 1999

THE QUEEN

v.

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.

-----