67 Withdrawal of appeals and applications
(1) An appeal or application for leave to appeal may at any stage be withdrawn by the appellant, but only by leave of the appeal court.
(2) In granting leave for an appeal or application for leave to appeal to be withdrawn, the appeal court may make such orders as are necessary to place the appellant as nearly as practicable in the same position as if the appeal or application had not been made.
(3) Any order made by the appeal court in respect of an appeal or application for leave to appeal that is withdrawn is taken to have been made by the Local Court.
15 The primary contention of the Director of Public Prosecutions before this court was that the orders made by Finnane DCJ were final orders which had been entered, and that there was no jurisdiction in the District Court to vacate them. The Director of Public Prosecutions also submitted that in any event there never was any valid appeal or application for leave to bring an appeal out of time. No appeal was brought within the time limited by s.11 of the Act; and there was no valid application for leave to appeal out of time in accordance with s.13 of the Act, because the documents of 15 June 2004 and 22 June 2004 were notices of appeal and not applications for leave to appeal, the document of 25 June 2004 was an application to the Court of Criminal Appeal not to the District Court, and the document of 20 August 2004 was outside the three months limited by s.13(2).
16 It is convenient to consider the status of the various documents lodged by Mr Dodds.
17 The documents of 15 June 2004 and 22 June 2004 were notices of appeal lodged outside the twenty-eight day period limited by s.11(2) of the Act and thus were invalid, at least unless leave to appeal out of time was subsequently granted. No application was made at any time to amend either of these documents under s.62 so as to make either document an application for leave to appeal under s.14(3), so it is not necessary to consider whether such an amendment could be made.
18 The document of 20 August 2004 was an application for leave to appeal, but it was lodged outside the three-month period limited by s.13(3) of the Act, so it too was invalid.
19 The document of 25 June 2004 was an application for leave to appeal lodged within the three-month period limited by s.13(3), but it was inappropriately worded in that it was entitled "Criminal Appeal Act 1912" and it was inaccurate in identifying the District Court as the court of trial. However, it correctly identified the location of the court of trial as Brewarrina and correctly identified the date of conviction or sentence as 20 April 2004.
20 In circumstances where Mr Dodds completed without legal assistance a document provided to him at the prison where he was in custody, and where one can take it that there was no relevant order concerning Mr Dodds made by any District Court at Brewarrina on 20 April 2004, the document plainly indicated an intention of Mr Dodds to seek leave to appeal out of time from the sentences imposed on him at Brewarrina on 20 April 2004, that is, sentences imposed by the Local Court. (I note that the form provided to him in fact only gave the alternatives of the District Court and the Supreme Court.) Also, the document plainly indicated an intention to seek leave to appeal to a court able to hear such an appeal, and the only such court is the District Court.
21 In my opinion, this document is capable of being amended under s.62 if this is necessary to make it clear that it is an application for leave to appeal out of time from a Local Court to the District Court. I would also note that this document would not appear to be affected by s.29(1)(c) of the Act, in that the decision had not previously been the subject of an appeal because the prior attempted appeals had been invalid.
22 I note that the document of 25 June 2004 was also deficient in that it was not lodged together with a written notice of appeal as required by s.14(3) of the Act. However, in my opinion, particularly where a notice of appeal had previously been lodged, albeit lodged out of time, this defect could also be dealt with under s.62 of the Act.
23 In all these circumstances, there is a significant question whether the orders made by Finnane DCJ were effectual and, if otherwise effectual, were within jurisdiction. There is a real question whether it is appropriate to make an order dismissing an appeal where there has been no valid appeal. In any event, if the order made was based on a stated intention to withdraw an appeal, it seems that the appropriate order should have been the grant of leave to withdraw an appeal under s.67 and not dismissal. It is also noted that in any event Finnane DCJ's orders did not deal at all with the application for leave to appeal dated 25 June 2004 which, as indicated above, was an effectual application for leave to appeal, at least if appropriately amended.
24 It would appear therefore that, even if this Court were to quash Nicholson DCJ's order and thus restore Finnane DCJ's orders, this would not put an end to the matter because there would be this outstanding application for leave to appeal. Looked at in that way, the grant of certiorari to quash Nicholson DCJ's orders would have no utility.
25 If Finnane DCJ's orders did have any effect greater than recognising the existing invalidity of appeals brought out of time, in my opinion they could be set aside by an order in the nature of certiorari because they would in those circumstances involve an inadvertent denial of procedural fairness.
26 Very briefly, the circumstances in which they were made were that the appeals in question had been listed before Finnane DCJ for mention. The solicitor handling the case for Mr Dodds was unable to attend and arranged for a colleague to mention it, among other matters, on her behalf. She made notes for her colleague's assistance, including a note signalling that the appeals had been lodged out of time. However, at this time she had not discussed the matter with Mr Dodds and was apparently unaware of the lodging of the application for leave to appeal out of time. The solicitor mentioning the appeal misinterpreted his colleague's note as telling him to have the appeal dismissed, and the appeal was dismissed on the basis of that misunderstanding without instructions having been obtained from Mr Dodds.
27 In all these circumstances, in my opinion, it is not necessary for this Court to consider whether Finnane DCJ's orders were final orders which had been entered or whether Nicholson DCJ had jurisdiction to vacate them. One course which I think is open to this Court would be to grant certiorari to quash Finnane DCJ's orders and also to quash the orders of Nicholson DCJ, if only as a consequential matter. However, in my view, the preferable course is simply to dismiss the proceedings. Any residual effect of Finnane DCJ's orders would be removed by Nicholson DCJ's orders, the District Court can consider the merits of Mr Dodds' application for leave to appeal out of time and, if leave is granted, can consider the merits of the appeal.
28 For those reasons, in my opinion, the summons and cross claim should both be dismissed.
29 SHELLER JA: I agree.
30 HUNT AJA: I would prefer to uphold the cross-claim by Mr Dodds and quash the order made by Finnane DCJ on that the basis that it was made in circumstances which amounted to a miscarriage of justice, or alternatively, as Hodgson JA has put it, an inadvertent denial of procedural fairness.
31 That miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated by the circumstances to which his Honour has referred, to which I would add one further matter which establishes that there was indeed merit in the appeal which had been dismissed by Finnane DCJ.
32 The solicitor appearing for the Crown on the application to Nicholson DCJ to vacate the order made by Finnane DCJ dismissing the appeal very fairly told Nicholson DCJ that the Crown had no objection to the substance of the application, and thought that it would be fair in the interests of justice to have the appeal heard for the first time on the merits were it not for the problem of jurisdiction. She later made it clear that the Crown thought that there was merit in the appeal, and she conceded that the appellant may have been misled as to the forms to fill in. She had been concerned only with the legal hurdles to such an appeal proceeding.
33 SHELLER JA: The orders of the court will be as proposed by Hodgson JA.
**********