Wiggins v Queensland Police Service

[2005] QDC 413

[2005] QDC 413

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE WHITE

Appeal No 264 of 2005 Appeal No 276 of 2005

ROBERT JAMES WIGGINS	Appellant
and
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE	Respondent
CAIRNS ..DATE 25/11/2005
JUDGMENT

25112005 D.1 T6/GRB M/T CNS1/2005 (White DCJ)

HIS HONOUR: The applicant in this case appeared in the	1
Magistrates Court at Mareeba on the 15th of September 2005.
...

10

HIS HONOUR: Charged with one offence, namely that on the 13th of May 2005 at Speewah in the Magistrates Court district of Cairns he unlawfully possessed two weapons, namely an air rifle and a .22 calibre rifle.

20

The applicant was represented by counsel at the time. It is not disputed that a plea of guilty was entered on behalf of the applicant by his counsel. It is not disputed that his counsel had instructions to enter the plea of guilty.

30

The learned Magistrate ordered, pursuant to section 19 of the Penalties and Sentences Act, that the applicant be placed on a good behaviour bond with a recognisance of $250 for a period of 12 months, and no conviction was recorded. An order was made that the weapons be forfeited.

40

...

HIS HONOUR: The applicant first filed a notice of appeal against this decision on the 13th of October 2005, he then

50

filed a notice of discontinuance on the 20th of October 2005,
he filed another notice of appeal on the 24th of October 2005.
That notice was out of time, so in accordance with what was
25112005 D.1 T6/GRB M/T CNS1/2005 (White DCJ) 2 JUDGMENT 60

required, the applicant also filed a notice of application for	1
an extension of time.
No affidavit has been filed in relation to the application for an extension of time setting out any circumstances which might

10

lead to even the possibility of a person, who has pleaded
guilty while represented by counsel, should be permitted to

depart from that plea of guilty.

Further, the basis of the desire to have the plea of guilty

20

set aside and a trial occur is a matter of discretion in
relation to the admissibility of evidence. What is in dispute
is whether or not the police officer who found the weapons at

the home of the applicant lawfully searched that home.

30

There is no automatic rule of law which says that evidence of such search is inadmissible in Court. The issue of the lawfulness of the search may be ventilated in order to persuade a Court to decline to accept evidence. No such application was made in the Court below.

40

In my view, the prospects of this appeal succeeding are so remote that, in my view, no extension of time should be granted for the filing of the notice of the appeal. The application dismissed.

50

-----

3 JUDGMENT 60