Taylor v The Queen

[2006] HCATrans 683

[2006] HCATrans 683

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M84 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MALVYN GREGORY TAYLOR

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Summons

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON TUESDAY, 12 DECEMBER 2006, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M.G. TAYLOR appeared in person.

MS C.M. QUIN:   If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Taylor, I am told by Mrs Musolino that you are unwell and wish to remain seated, is that right?

MR TAYLOR:   Yes, I have problems, crook leg.

HIS HONOUR:   You may do that.  Now, Mr Taylor, this is your summons and you have made an affidavit in support of that summons of 24 November, is that right?

MR TAYLOR:   Yes.

HIS HONOUR:   Is there any objection to ‑ ‑ ‑

MS QUIN:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   That may be taken as read.  Well, Mr Taylor, what do you have to say in support of your application?

MR TAYLOR:   Your Honour, I have been trying vainly to get legal representation, but I have got serious health problems and I have walked many miles trying to get this, so I can get my submissions in, and that is about all I can say, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  What is the attitude of the respondent, Ms Quin?

MS QUIN:   Your Honour may recall this matter before you on 24 August 2006 ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   I do.

MS QUIN:   ‑ ‑ ‑ where similar representations were made to your Honour regarding Mr Taylor’s legal representation and his progress, effectively, in organising that.  At that time a date of 22 September was set as to the time at which filing was required.  Mr Taylor has since had three more extensions of time granted by consent, your Honour, from our office and really, your Honour, the time is come.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  May I just ask you, Ms Quin, am I right to understand that the primary judge sentenced Mr Taylor to a wholly

suspended term of imprisonment, the period of suspension being 12 months, and that that period has now expired more than a year ago?

MS QUIN:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you, Ms Quin.  Is there anything you wish to add, Mr Taylor, or answer?

MR TAYLOR:   Well, I believe I was unguilty in this whole matter and I still want to get my submissions in, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Anything else?

MR TAYLOR:   That is about all I can say, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Taylor.

The applicant, Malvyn Gregory Taylor, was convicted in the County Court of Victoria on one count of perjury.  The conviction was recorded in 2004 and on 8 October of that year Mr Taylor was sentenced to eight months imprisonment to be wholly suspended for a period of 12 months.  Mr Taylor sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria against his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him.  The application to that Court was adjourned in May 2006 in order to enable him to obtain legal representation. 

On 2 June 2006 his application for leave to appeal came on for hearing in the Court of Appeal.  He appeared in person, again seeking an adjournment to enable him to obtain what he called his file from the Legal Aid Commission and his former solicitor.  The Court of Appeal concluded that no purpose would be served by a further adjournment of the application, refused the application for adjournment and proceeded to hear and determine the applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.  The court refused those applications.

On 29 June 2006 Mr Taylor made application to this Court for special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal of Victoria.  He proffered five grounds in support of that application for special leave to appeal, three of which concerned his application for adjournment of the hearing of the appeal to the Court of Appeal and questions presented by his lack of representation in that court. 

Ground 4, which is the only ground which on its face appeared to go to the substance of the issues determined in the Court of Appeal, alleged that that court had erred in finding that the trial judge had not erred in addressing the jury and giving weight to his views rather than those of the applicant, thus giving the jury directions that were unsafe and unsatisfactory in nature and in meaning.  The fifth ground of the application for special leave to appeal alleges that the Court of Appeal erred in law in permitting the respondent “to rely on a perjured affidavit and not challenging that affidavit for its accuracy”.

Mr Taylor has not filed his summary of argument in support of his application for special leave to appeal.  On Thursday, 24 August I extended the time within which he might file his summary of argument, extending the time to expire on 4.00 pm Friday, 22 September 2006.  Having made that order, I asked Mr Taylor whether he understood that he had until 4.00 pm on that day.  Mr Taylor replied that he did and I then said to him, “And that is it”.

Subsequently, by consent of the respondent, orders have been made on 20 September, 13 October and 23 October 2006 extending the time within which Mr Taylor may file his summary of argument.  Mr Taylor has not yet done that.  By summons dated 24 November he seeks an order that the time for the filing and serving of his submissions be extended to 6 February 2007.  In support of that application he points again to the fact that he is unrepresented, that he has no source of income other than a disability pension, that he is “without the legal knowledge and expertise to represent” himself, that his endeavours to have the appointment of a firm to represent him “were not satisfactory”, that he has applied by letter to the Victorian Bar for assistance with his appeal but he does not disclose what response has been made to that application.  He contends that his appeal is meritorious and should proceed, that the conviction recorded against him was bad in law and ought not to be upheld and he, in those circumstances, asks for a further extension. 

In my opinion, no further extension should be granted.  Mr Taylor has already had a number of opportunities within which to complete the steps necessary to put his application for special leave to appeal to this Court in order.  The grounds assigned in his application for special leave to appeal are best described as unpromising.  The sentence which was imposed upon him has now long since expired.  There is in my view no case made out that would warrant the grant of a further extension of time. 

The consequence of refusing the extension sought is, as I well recognise, a consequence that Mr Taylor’s application for special leave to appeal will, by operation of the Rules, be deemed abandoned.  Notwithstanding that consequence, I am of the view that the extension sought should be refused.  The application is dismissed.

Adjourn the Court.

AT 9.46 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED