R v Washband

[2000] QCA 486

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
WILLIAMS J
CULLINANE J

CA No 251 of 2000

THE QUEEN

CRAIG ANTHONY WASHBAND Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/11/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: The applicant was convicted in the District Court on 26 April 2000 on pleas of guilty. There were a number of offences, some indictable and some summary. The applicant had a criminal history but the Judge mercifully decided to give him "one last chance". He imposed wholly suspended sentences, a total of $500 in fines, and in respect of a previously suspended sentence his Honour ordered that the applicant be sentenced to the rising of the Court.

On 21 September 2000, nearly five months after these convictions and sentences, the applicant filed an application for an extension of time within which to appeal. In that document he gave an explanation for the delay which is difficult to follow. He also said that his appeal was based on the ground that the Judge told him he had to use the same solicitor and the applicant added a complaint about his counsel and solicitor. There is also a letter which has been discussed with the applicant today and which he informs us was prepared by him. It is dated 8 November 2000. The grounds of appeal are stated in the letter to be that he was abused as a child, that he had previously been stalked by a crazy woman, and that there was a gross negligence in the Magistrates Court and that there was a long running vendetta by the prosecutors. He pressed on the Court the need for urgency "as I have fallen ill from the prosecutor and the judge". The impression created is of an application based on broad and unusual grounds unsupported by any plausible detail. It seems to be suggested in the letter of 8 November 2000 that a person described as a member of the Magistrates Court judiciary "instructed me to sign a document stating that I was not obliged to start civil action against the security guards" - those guards being, it appears, the complainants in relation to one of the charges.

The letter goes on to say that "the cases should be dismissed at the first convenience. Some other matters on my agenda would be to have the rest of my record cleared". So that it appears that all the past convictions are to be attacked, apparently by future proceedings. Mr Washband has appeared before us today and has mentioned again the allegation that he is being stalked by the prosecutor. In my view in view of the long delay, the absence of a satisfactory explanation for it and the apparent lack of substance in the complaints made by the applicant this application should be refused and I would so order.

WILLIAMS J: I agree.

CULLINANE: I also agree.

PINCUS JA: The application is refused.
‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Washband involved Craig Anthony Washband, who was convicted in the District Court on various charges. These charges included both indictable and summary offences. The District Court Judge gave Washband a suspended sentence, a total of $500 in fines, and ordered him to be sentenced to the rising of the Court regarding a previously suspended sentence. Nearly five months after his convictions, Washband applied for an extension of time to appeal, citing various grounds for the delay and complaints about the judge, his counsel, and the prosecutor. The applicant also alleged abuse in his childhood, stalking by a woman, and gross negligence in the Magistrates Court. The appeal was based on these grounds and was considered to be lacking in substance.

The legal issues in this case focused on the timeliness of Washband's appeal application, the adequacy of the explanations provided for the delay, and the sufficiency of the grounds for the appeal. The Court had to determine whether the delay in filing the appeal was justifiable and whether the grounds provided were valid and supported by plausible detail. The Court also had to consider whether the complaints made by Washband were sufficient to warrant an appeal.

The Court of Appeal, comprising Pincus JA, Williams J, and Cullinane J, found that the application was untimely and lacked substance. The Court was particularly critical of the absence of a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the lack of detail in the complaints made by Washband. The Court concluded that the application should be refused, as it did not meet the necessary criteria for an extension of time to appeal. The Court's decision was unanimous, with all three judges agreeing on the refusal of the application.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for an extension of time to appeal was refused. This decision effectively upheld the original conviction and sentence imposed by the District Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established