Richards v The Queen - [2003] NTCCA 8

Richards v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 8
PARTIES:FRANK JOHN RICHARDS

v
THE QUEEN

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:CA 15 of 2003 (20302179)
DELIVERED:  22 September 2003
HEARING DATES:  12 September 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ
CATCHWORDS:
APPLICATION

Extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal – question of whether an injustice will flow from depriving the applicant of the opportunity to press his appeal.
Supreme Court Rules, Rule 86.14(2)
The Queen v Brown (1963) SASR 190, considered.
R v O’Keefe [1979] VR 1, referred.
R v Armstrong (1996) 1 QdR 316, considered.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:P.X. Elliott
Respondent:  D. Lewis
Solicitors:
Applicant:Woodcocks Solicitors
Respondent:  Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment category classification:      C
Judgment ID Number:  mar0340
Number of pages:  11

Mar0340

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Richards v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 8
No. CA 15 of 2003 (20302179)

BETWEEN:
FRANK JOHN RICHARDS

Applicant
AND:
THE QUEEN

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 22 September 2003)

This matter comes before me as an application for an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal against an order partly restoring a sentence (see generally as to the powers exercisable by a judge of the court contained in s 429 of the Criminal Code). Part 3 of Order 86 of the Supreme Court Rules, especially Rule 86.14(2), provides that such an application may be determined on the written arguments and in the absence of the parties, subject of course to hearing them if thought necessary to do so.
There follows a brief chronology:
·     26 February 2002 the applicant was sentenced by Riley J to a term of 12 months imprisonment to be suspended after 2 months upon being found guilty of supplying a commercial quantity of cannabis. An operational period of 18 months was fixed, expiring on 25 August 2003.
·     December 2002 the applicant committed the offence of stalking on one of the policemen involved in the drug offence investigations. The acts complained of included the sending of a postcard and telephone calls, including a threat of violence.
·     27 March 2003 the applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for 6 months for that offence which was ordered to have commenced on 11 February and to be suspended after the applicant had served 45 days, the period he had been in custody. He was released forthwith.
·     Consequent upon that conviction, the applicant was before Riley J on 13 June 2003 for breach of the order suspending the sentence imposed in February 2002. His Honour restored 6 months of the suspended period of 10 months. The applicant was then, as in all other matters before the court, represented by counsel.
·     12 July 2003, the time for application for leave to appeal expired.
·     18 July the applicant gave instructions in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Richards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Richards v The Queen [2003] NTCCA 8
Case: [2003] NTCCA 8
Decision Date: 22 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Richards, sought an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal against his conviction. The respondent was The Queen. The application was heard by Martin CJ in the Court of Appeal of Western Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether an injustice would flow from depriving Richards of the opportunity to pursue his appeal. This required the Court to consider the merits of the proposed appeal and the reasons for the delay in bringing the application.

Martin CJ noted that the applicant had been convicted of a serious offence and that the delay in seeking leave to appeal was substantial. His Honour considered the grounds of appeal that were foreshadowed and concluded that they did not disclose a reasonably arguable case. Consequently, Martin CJ found that there was no injustice in refusing the extension of time, as the applicant would not be deprived of the opportunity to press an appeal with any real prospect of success.

The application for an extension of time was therefore dismissed.

Orders