R v Yardy

[1995] QCA 238

COURT OF APPEAL
McPHERSON JA
MOYNIHAN J

de JERSEY J

CA No 136 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

WILLIAM JOHN YARDY Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 24/04/95
McPHERSON JA: I will ask Mr Justice Moynihan to give the
first judgment.

MOYNIHAN J: This is an application for leave to extend the time in which to appeal against a sentence. The sentence was for a period of community service in respect of a charge of making a false statement to the police.

The basis of the appeal is in respect of the fact that no order was made that a conviction should not be recorded. The explanation for the delay of I think some 20 days in the lateness of the appeal is not particularly satisfactory. There was ample basis for the Judge to proceed to have a conviction recorded.

The applicant had lied to the police in terms of saying that he had provided some jewellery to a woman called Brown in order for her to sell it. He knew that was false and apparently he did it in order to protect her position in respect of the Social Security benefits which she was receiving. The trial Judge remarked and it is the case to the effect that the applicant who is some 50-odd years of age was formerly a policeman and ought to have known better. The prospects therefore of the substantive appeal being successful are slight. Combined with the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay it seems to me that the application for leave to extend the time in which to appeal ought to be refused.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.
de JERSEY J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order is as Mr Justice Moynihan has stated it. The application is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in the case of R v Yardy considered an application for leave to extend the time limit for an appeal against a sentence imposed on the applicant, William John Yardy. The sentence was a period of community service, following Yardy's conviction for making a false statement to the police. The primary issue before the court was whether the application for an extension of time to appeal should be granted, given the delay in lodging the appeal and the prospects of success of the substantive appeal.

The court had to weigh the merits of the applicant's argument that no order was made for a conviction not to be recorded, against the delay in lodging the appeal. The applicant, a former policeman, had lied to the police to protect a woman's eligibility for Social Security benefits. The trial judge had noted that Yardy, being over 50 years old and with a background in law enforcement, ought to have known better. The prospects of the appeal being successful were deemed slight by the Court of Appeal, which was compounded by the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal, consisting of McPherson JA, Moynihan J, and de Jersey J, all agreed that the application for leave to extend the time to appeal should be refused. The reasoning was based on the slight prospects of success of the appeal, coupled with the inadequate explanation for the delay in lodging the appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the appeal time was not extended.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established