R v Smith

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 236

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

McPHERSON JA

CA No 133 of 1992

THE QUEEN

JASON THOMAS SMITH

(Appellant)

BRISBANE
..DATE 14/7/92

JUDGMENT JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: An application is made to extend the time within which to appeal against sentence. The notice was lodged some week or two out of time. The explanation given

for the late lodgment is very sparse. The applicant, who

appears for himself, had filled in a form which says that he

had not been able to obtain the required papers to fill in,

but he was unable to explain clearly what that was about,

because he seems to say that papers where there at the

correctional centre where he was held. In any event, he is

out of time in lodging his application.

He was sentenced effectively to a four-year custodial term. question, 16 March of this year. The longest term to which he was sentenced, four years, was in respect of housebreaking. His previous criminal history would present a problem for him if he did have an appeal against sentence which he could

maintain. The summary placed before us shows that he had five
court appearances in less than four years; 20 of the offences
concerned dishonesty. Prior to the occasion with which we are
concerned he was imprisoned for three months, followed by two
years’ probation. Five of the offences which concern us,

including the one on which the four-year term was imposed,

were all committed after the applicant was released from and compelling circumstance which would persuade the Court to overlook the fact that he is simply out of time with his application and I would refuse the application for extension.

custody and while he was still on probation.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

_____

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Smith is an appeal against the time limit for lodging an appeal against sentence. The appellant, Jason Thomas Smith, was sentenced to a four-year custodial term and applied for an extension of time to appeal the sentence. The application was lodged late and the explanation provided for the delay was sparse. Smith, who appeared for himself, claimed he had not been able to obtain the required papers to fill in the application form, but he was unable to provide a clear explanation of the issue. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appellant’s explanation was sufficient to grant an extension of time for the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the appellant was out of time in lodging his application. The appellant had a history of dishonesty offences, with 20 such offences over a period of less than four years. The appellant was imprisoned for three months, followed by two years’ probation, and committed five offences, including the one on which the four-year term was imposed, after being released from custody and while still on probation. The Court found that the appellant had not provided a compelling circumstance that would persuade the Court to overlook the fact that he was out of time with his application. The Court of Appeal concluded that the application for an extension of time to appeal the sentence should be refused.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant’s application for an extension of time to appeal the sentence. The Court found that the appellant was out of time in lodging his application and had not provided a compelling circumstance to justify the late lodgment. The Court concluded that the appellant’s history of dishonesty offences and the fact that he committed further offences after being released from custody and while still on probation did not provide a sufficient explanation for the delay in lodging the application. The Court of Appeal’s decision was unanimous, with Macrossan CJ, Davies JA, and McPherson JA all agreeing to refuse the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established