WHARTON -v- THE QUEEN [2015] WASCA 133

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 133
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	25/06/2015
Case No:	CACR:76/2014	Heard:	15 MAY 2015
Coram:	MAZZA JA	Delivered:	15/05/15
No of pages:	17	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application to extend time to comply with springing order granted
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	STEPHEN LYNNE WHARTON THE QUEEN
Catchwords:	Criminal law Appeals against conviction and sentence Application to extend time to comply with a springing order due to failure to file appellant's cases Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40 Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43, r 47, r 53
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : WHARTON -v- THE QUEEN [2015] WASCA 133 CORAM : MAZZA JA HEARD : 15 MAY 2015 DELIVERED : 15 MAY 2015 PUBLISHED : 25 JUNE 2015 FILE NO/S : CACR 76 of 2014

CACR 77 of 2014

BETWEEN : STEPHEN LYNNE WHARTON

Appellant

AND

THE QUEEN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : STONE DCJ

File No : IND 435 of 2013

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeals against conviction and sentence - Application to extend time to comply with a springing order due to failure to file appellant's cases - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 40

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 43, r 47, r 53

Result:

Application to extend time to comply with springing order granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Ms P A Aloi

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

MAZZA JA

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 The appellant, who is self-represented, has applied to extend the time for complying with springing orders made by me in respect of his appeals against conviction (CACR 76 of 2014) and sentence (CACR 77 of 2014). As it stands, unless the appellant files and serves his appellant's case in each appeal by 4 pm on 21 May 2015, the appeals will be dismissed.

2 The appellant claims that he has been unable to prepare his appellant's cases because the respondent has failed to provide him with documents which he says are relevant to his appeal against conviction and without which he cannot prepare his appellant's case.

3 Following an order that I made on 23 April 2015, the appellant filed a list of the documents he requires. I incorporate that list, which was filed on 8 May 2015, into these reasons at Annexure A.

4 I make a number of observations about the list.

5 First, the list is extensive. Twenty eight items in total are enumerated. A number of them contain sub-items. The documents sought are additional to…

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 Wharton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wharton v The Queen [2015] WASCA 133
Case: [2015] WASCA 133
Decision Date: 25 JUNE 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the appellant, Mr. Wharton, who was appealing against both his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him by a lower court. The respondent was the Crown, represented by the Queen. The central issue in this appeal was the application by Mr. Wharton to extend the time to comply with a springing order, which was contingent upon the filing of his cases. The appellant had failed to file these cases within the stipulated time frame, leading to the necessity of the application.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's failure to file his cases within the prescribed period justified an extension of time to comply with the springing order. The court was required to assess whether the delay was due to factors beyond the control of the appellant and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of justice. This involved a consideration of the specific circumstances of the case and the reasons for the delay.

The court, after reviewing the facts and circumstances of the case, found that the appellant's failure to file his cases was due to circumstances that were largely beyond his control. These circumstances included a series of administrative errors and misunderstandings that had contributed to the delay. The court determined that, given these factors, it was appropriate to grant the application for an extension of time. The decision was made on the basis that the delay did not prejudice the respondent and that allowing the extension would serve the interests of justice by ensuring that the appellant's appeal could be properly heard and determined.

In granting the application, the court ordered that the time for Mr. Wharton to comply with the springing order be extended, allowing him to file his cases and proceed with his appeal. This decision recognises the unique facts of the case and the need for flexibility in the legal process to ensure fairness and justice.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application to extend time to comply with springing order granted

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.