R v Taylor - [2006] VSCA 124

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 261 of 2004

THE QUEEN

MALVYN GREGORY TAYLOR

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, VINCENT and NEAVE JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	5 May and 2 June 2006
DATE OF ORDER:	2 June 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 124

---

Criminal law – perjury - application for further adjournment – application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence – no purpose to be served by a further adjournment – application for further adjournment refused - appeal against conviction misconceived; appeal against sentence without merit – applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M.A. Gamble	Instructed by Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Appeared in person

BUCHANAN, J.A.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against his conviction on one count of perjury and the sentence which was imposed upon him in consequence.

The application for leave to appeal was adjourned on 5 May 2006 in order to enable the applicant to obtain legal representation. The applicant has been unable to obtain legal representation. He now appears in person and seeks an adjournment to enable him to obtain what he calls his file from the Legal Aid Commission and his former solicitor. He has made requests and has been supplied with certain documents, but now claims that there are other documents retained by the Commission.

The applicant is unable to identify any document which might bear upon the application for leave to appeal or which might found or support a ground of the application.

In our opinion, no purpose will be served by a further adjournment of the application and accordingly the application for an adjournment is refused.

(Discussion ensued.)

NEAVE J.A:

The applicant, Mr Malvyn Taylor was convicted of one count of perjury and sentenced to eight months imprisonment. The sentence was wholly suspended for a period of 12 months.

His conviction arose out of events following a judgment against him in civil proceedings. The applicant was held liable to pay damage of approximately $292,000 plus costs. In October 2000, Mr Taylor applied to the Registrar under the Judgment Debt Recovery Act 1984 for an order permitting him to pay the judgment debt in instalments. As part of this process, he was required to swear an affidavit setting out his assets and liabilities. The affidavit was sworn on 18 October 2000.

When he swore the affidavit, he was the registered proprietor of properties at 28 McCulloch Avenue, Seaford and 384 Spencer Street, Melbourne, but these assets were not disclosed, nor did he disclose some outstanding debts.

The applicant was interviewed by the police about the statements made in the affidavit. He denied that he had made false statements and gave evasive answers about his ownership of 28 McCulloch Avenue, Seaford and 384 Spencer Street, Melbourne. During the police interview, he said that he had sold the properties two or three years before swearing…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [2006] VSCA 124
Case: [2006] VSCA 124
Decision Date: 2 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Taylor, was convicted of perjury and other related offences. He applied for a further adjournment of his sentencing and leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The application was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether a further adjournment would serve any useful purpose, whether the appeal against the conviction had any prospect of success, and whether the appeal against the sentence was meritorious.

The court found that there was no useful purpose to be served by a further adjournment of the sentencing, as all the relevant matters had already been canvassed in previous hearings. The appeal against the conviction was deemed misconceived, as there was no arguable error of law that would warrant an appeal. The appeal against the sentence was found to be without merit, as the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range for the offences committed. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal against both the conviction and the sentence were dismissed.

The court’s reasoning was based on the thorough examination of the evidence and submissions presented. It concluded that the appellant's applications lacked any substantive legal grounds for reconsideration. As a result, the court upheld the original conviction and sentence. The final orders of the court were that the application for a further adjournment was refused, and the applications for leave to appeal against the conviction and sentence were dismissed.

Orders