R v WINTERS No. SCCRM-96-440 Judgment No. S6760

R v WINTERS

Court of Criminal Appeal: Doyle CJ, Williams and Bleby JJ

DOYLE CJ

This is an application for leave to appeal against conviction.

The applicant was convicted on the verdict of a jury of a number of breaking and entering offences, and other offences associated with the breaking offences.

The applicant applied for leave to appeal against conviction. The application came before Duggan J on a number of occasions. Ultimately, amended grounds of appeal were filed. These were supported by detailed affidavits sworn by the applicant and dated 10 December 1997 and 16 March 1998. A number of documents were annexed to the affidavits.

On 7 May 1998 Duggan J allowed an extension of time within which to appeal, but refused leave to appeal on all grounds.

By application dated 14 May 1998 the applicant applied to have determined by the Full Court his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The application was considered by the Full Court in private pursuant to Rule 15(7) of the Supreme Court Criminal Appeal Rules 1996. The application as considered by a Court comprising me, Williams J and Bleby J.

The grounds relied upon by the applicant were the same grounds as were pursued before Duggan J. By letter dated 11 May 1998 the applicant sought certain documentation from the Criminal Appeals Clerk, to enable him to prepare a written summary of argument. That material was provided to the applicant. A written summary of argument, dated 25 June 1998, was then provided by the applicant.

The Court has considered the further material provided by Mr Winters. That material is not clearly expressed. It does not appear to add anything to the material that was put before Duggan J.

The Court has considered each ground of appeal. In doing so, the Court has considered the material put before Duggan J, the conclusions of Duggan J, and the further material provided by Mr Winters.

Having considered the material put forward by the applicant, and the written reasons of Duggan J, the Court is unanimously of the conclusion that there is no reasonable prospect of any of the grounds advanced succeeding on appeal. The Court agrees with the reasons of Duggan J for refusing leave to appeal.

Accordingly, the decision of the Court is that leave to appeal be refused on all grounds.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court of Criminal Appeal was an application for leave to appeal against a conviction. The applicant, Winters, was convicted by a jury on multiple counts of breaking and entering and related offences. Winters sought leave to appeal against his conviction, with his application having been previously considered by Duggan J. The Court of Criminal Appeal, comprising Doyle CJ, Williams J, and Bleby J, reviewed the application after Duggan J had already denied leave to appeal. The applicant's grounds for appeal were essentially the same as those previously argued before Duggan J. The Court examined the material presented by Winters, which included affidavits and supporting documents, as well as the conclusions reached by Duggan J.

The legal issues before the Court centred on whether there was a reasonable prospect of success on any of the grounds of appeal advanced by Winters. This required the Court to assess the merits of the grounds of appeal, taking into account the evidence presented, the findings of Duggan J, and the additional material submitted by Winters. The Court needed to determine whether the arguments put forward by Winters were sufficient to warrant an appeal against the conviction.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the grounds of appeal did not present a reasonable prospect of success. The Court agreed with Duggan J's assessment that the evidence and legal arguments did not support an appeal. The Court concluded that the additional material provided by Winters did not significantly alter the outcome. The unanimous decision was that leave to appeal against the conviction should be refused on all grounds.

The Court's decision was that leave to appeal against the conviction was refused, upholding the lower court's decision. This outcome ensures that the conviction stands as determined by the jury, and the appeal process is concluded on the grounds presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established