R v Wilson

[2001] QCA 450

[2001] QCA 450

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
AMBROSE J
CULLINANE J

CA No 165 of 2001

THE QUEEN

v.

ROSS KEITH WILSON  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/10/2001

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against conviction and for leave to appeal against sentence.  The applicant was convicted and sentenced on 23 August 2000, the offence being unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation.  He was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, wholly suspended to two years, and ordered to pay compensation of $4,500 by 23 July 2001.

The applicant's explanation for his failure to appeal and seek leave to appeal within time is that at the time of his conviction and sentence, that is 23 August 2000, he was subject to depression and psychosis which made it impossible for him to understand his appeal rights.  Unfortunately for him, his contention is not supported by the medical evidence which he has produced to us.  He has produced two medical certificates, one from Dr Mergard of the Gin Gin Medical Centre dated 25 January 2001 and one from Dr Yi-Ping Partridge dated 14 June 2001.

It is the first of these which could only possibly be of relevance because Dr Mergard, it seems, had been the applicant's treating doctor for some time, indeed, since 1993.  Dr Mergard has said in his report that the applicant had a long history of severe depression dating back to at least 1997, but that he had had a marked improvement on medication which he had taken, but he had an exacerbation in 1997.  And he then went on to say that in this year, that is 2001, he has had significant problems with worsening of his depression, which has in large part been aggravated by a most stressful legal battle he has been fighting, no doubt the case the subject of the application.

But the report does not support the applicant's assertion that he was unable in August 2000 or indeed thereafter for some time to understand the nature of his appeal rights and although he has continued to make that assertion to this Court, I do not think that we should accept that assertion without support from medical assessment.  Particularly having regard to the fact that his explanation of what took place was plainly not accepted by the jury and that in imposing sentence upon the applicant, the learned sentencing Judge said, "I am satisfied that most of your evidence was a pack of lies.  I would not be disposed to accept anything you had to say unless it were corroborated.  You are obviously very experienced in telling tall stories."

That alone, in my submission, is sufficient to dispose of the application, but it seems to me, in addition, that the prospects of success on any appeal against conviction would be very slim.  The circumstances that were such as to make it very hard to overcome this, it seems to me, were that when the police recovered the vehicle, pieces of equipment, including the compliance plates and a number of others, had been removed from the vehicle and there was evidence from an employee that after a dispute arose about the cost of repairs, the applicant had said he was going to alter the vehicle's appearance so that the owner would not be able to identify it and the witness also said he was asked by the applicant to store the vehicle's seats at his house.  The police also said that when they questioned the applicant about the whereabouts of the vehicle, he claimed he had sold it which plainly was not correct.

For all of those reasons, it seems to me that the application must be refused and I would accordingly refuse the application.

AMBROSE J:  I agree.

CULLINANE J:  I agree.

DAVIES JA:  The application is refused.

‑‑‑‑‑