R v Smith - [2016] QCA 201

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Smith [2016] QCA 201

PARTIES:

R
v
SMITH, Alan Peter
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 84 of 2016
SC of 1989

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 2 August 1989

DELIVERED ON:

16 August 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 August 2016

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Dalton and North JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The application for an extension of time is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where there has been a period of twenty six years since conviction and sentence – where the applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal his conviction – whether there would be a serious miscarriage of justice if extension of time was refused

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
R v DAQ[2008] QCA 75, cited
R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: On 4 April 2016 the applicant (also now known as Alan Peter Truelove) filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction of the offence of manslaughter and his sentence for that offence of 12 years imprisonment. The applicant was convicted and sentenced for that offence on 2 August 1989.

In R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667 at 668 the Court held that, in considering an application for an extension of time within which to bring a criminal appeal, the Court will “examine whether there is any good reason shown to account for the delay and consider overall whether it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension.” After referring to the possibility that this may involve an assessment of whether the appeal appears to be viable, the Court went on to refer to other factors, including the length of the delay, “it being much easier to excuse a short than a long delay”. In R v DAQ [2008] QCA 75 at [11], Keane JA (with whose reasons McKenzie AJA and I agreed) referred to an example in which an applicant had made a deliberate decision not to appeal and had changed his mind in that regard only after serving the bulk of the sentence. Keane JA observed that, “it is understandable that the discretion to allow an appeal to proceed should be exercised in favour of an applicant only where the applicant presents a compelling demonstration of a serious injustice which can be corrected only on appeal”.

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Smith [2016] QCA 201
Case: [2016] QCA 201
Decision Date: 16 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Smith, the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter many years prior, sought an extension of time to appeal his conviction. The application was made well outside the statutory time limit, and the court was tasked with determining whether an extension should be granted. The appellant argued that the passage of time did not prejudice the court's ability to hear the appeal and that there would be a serious miscarriage of justice if the appeal was not heard.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant could be granted an extension of time to appeal his conviction, given the substantial delay in bringing the application. The court had to consider the statutory provisions regarding the time limits for appeals and the circumstances under which an extension might be justified. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the appellant could demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting an extension and whether denying the extension would result in a serious miscarriage of justice.

The court examined the statutory framework governing appeals and the general principle that strict adherence to time limits is necessary to ensure the finality of judgments. It noted that the appellant had not provided any exceptional circumstances to justify the delay in filing the appeal. The court held that the passage of over twenty-six years since the conviction and the absence of any special circumstances that could excuse the delay were significant factors. The court concluded that the appellant had not met the threshold for demonstrating a serious miscarriage of justice if the extension was not granted.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The appellant's plea of guilty and the lengthy delay in seeking an appeal weighed heavily against the grant of an extension. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory time limits and the need to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for an extension of time is refused.

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.

CITATION:	R v Smith [2016] QCA 201
PARTIES:	R v SMITH, Alan Peter (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 84 of 2016 SC of 1989
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence & Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Townsville – Date of Conviction & Sentence: 2 August 1989
DELIVERED ON:	16 August 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	2 August 2016
JUDGES:	Fraser JA and Dalton and North JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The application for an extension of time is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICES OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter – where there has been a period of twenty six years since conviction and sentence – where the applicant seeks an extension of time to appeal his conviction – whether there would be a serious miscarriage of justice if extension of time was refused Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited R v DAQ[2008] QCA 75, cited R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667; [1998] QCA 304, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent