R v Wheatman No. Sccrm-01-6

[2002] SASC 359

R v WHEATMAN
[2002] SASC 359

Court of Criminal Appeal:  Duggan, Debelle and Williams JJ (ex tempore)

1. DUGGAN J            For the sake of the transcript I indicate that the court has perused the statements of Steven Hemmings, Andrew Hemmings, Kiara Edmonds, and Tammy Edmonds. Mr Rofe, the court does not wish to hear you on this matter and I would ask Debelle J to deliver his reasons first.

2. DEBELLE J           The applicant was convicted after trial by judge alone for a number of sexual offences committed against young children. The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the conviction. Leave was refused.

3. The applicant now applies to this court for leave to appeal. We have heard oral argument in support of his application. In his submissions, the applicant asserts his innocence. He has failed to demonstrate any flaw in the reasons of the trial judge.

4. The judge who heard the initial application for leave to appeal published extensive reasons for his decision of refusing leave. As he said in those reason, he did so because the appellant was not represented and it was necessary for the judge to examine the points raised by the applicant in greater detail and at greater length than might otherwise be necessary on an application for leave to appeal.

5. I would also dismiss the application for the reasons given by the judge below. This is not an appeal to the judge who refused leave but is, of course, a rehearing of the application. However, I have had regard to the reasons of the judge below because the judge has set them out in great detail and I respectfully agree with them. Nothing is to be gained by repeating them.

6. I add that the applicant in the course of his submissions referred to some witnesses who, he says, his legal advisors refused to call. He summarised the effect of the evidence of some of those witnesses. In the case of others he provided us with copies of their written statements. The summary which the applicant provided of those witnesses for whom there were no statements and the written statements provided both indicate that all of those witnesses could have given evidence only of matters which are peripheral and do not in any sense bear upon the facts central to the allegations made against him. It is understandable therefore that the witnesses were not called.

7. For these reasons I would dismiss the application.

8. DUGGAN J            I agree that this application should be dismissed for the reasons given by Debelle J.

9. WILLIAMS J         I agree with Debelle J’s reasons and with the course that he proposes.

10. DUGGAN J            The order of the court is the application is dismissed.

11. APPELLANT         Can I have a copy of this transcript?

12. DUGGAN J            Certainly. I will direct that a copy be made available to you.

13. I direct a copy of the transcript be provided to Mr Wheatman.