R v Uhle

[1992] QCA 193

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 193

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA

DEMACK J

CA NO 108 OF 1992
THE QUEEN
c.
BILLIE ELISHA MAY UHLE
BRISBANE
... DATE 9/6/92
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant who was 19 years of age at the time
of her conviction was convicted in the District Court of Brisbane
on 13 January 1992, of stealing on 5 January 1991 and the
sentence imposed was a good behaviour bond for the period of two
years in the sum of $250. According to the evidence at the
trial, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the
offence involved a domestic dispute between the applicant and her
mother who had hired the television set which was said to be
stolen, and there was evidence that the applicant came to the
house and took the television set. There was direct evidence to
that effect from the applicant's father. The applicant gave no
evidence but an alibi was provided by another witness who
indicated that the applicant was drinking in a hotel at the time.

The applicant has applied for an extension of time in which to appeal against her conviction on the basis of an affidavit which has been provided by an apprentice television technician employed by the hire company which hired the television set to the applicant's mother. According to his affidavit, the technician was instructed to attend the premises from which the television set had allegedly been taken by the applicant and he did so on 17 or 18 February 1992, in order to check on a late rental payment, and in order to check the television set was on the premises. When he did so he discovered that the television set was there and he identified it by reference to its serial number. The applicant's case is that that demonstrated that she had not removed the television set from the premises, it being contended that it was still there. However, it is plain that the technician's evidence does no more than indicate that at a time more than one year after the alleged offence and indeed after the applicant had been convicted and sentenced, the television set was in the possession of her mother. It gives no indication whether the television set had been removed or where it was in the intervening period. In the circumstances there is no basis on the evidence so far available to call in question the conviction, based upon the verdict of guilty, at which the jury arrived. It is common ground that if the applicant is able to ascertain further evidence which fills in the gaps the dismissal of this application will not present an obstacle for a further application. Accordingly, in my opinion the application should be dismissed.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

DEMACK J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The application is dismissed.

-----

3