Puschenjak v Wade [2002] QCA 190

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2002-05-27|Before: Murdo P, Williams JA, Jones J

The applicant wishes to re-litigate the circumstances of the charges and the fact that he did not wish to plead guilty. His complaints against his former counsel are not matters that can be dealt with in these proceedings.

The length of the delay in instituting this appeal is quite extraordinary. The relevant events occurred between October and December 1998. The proceedings in the Magistrates Court and the appeal to the District Court were disposed of in a timely way by the 20th of August 1999.

The next indication on the material before this Court of an attempt to resurrect these issues appears to be in an exchange of correspondence with the Assistant Commissioner of Police for Far North Queensland. One letter dated 15th of February 2002 appears to be part of this exchange. This application was lodged two weeks after that letter.

The applicant's appeal to the District Court appears to have been instituted within time, or within such time as not to require comment from the learned District Court Judge. I infer from that fact that the appellant had some awareness that time limits apply to appeals. The only explanation for the delay offered by the applicant now is that he was unaware of his right to seek leave to appeal. That state of mind appears to have continued until February 2002.

No explanation is given of any attempt to ascertain his rights. Consequently, it seems to me, having regard to the requirements for consideration, that in the absence of any cogent explanation for delay, the interests of justice indicate that this application should be refused and I would so order.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree with Justice Jones that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal from the decision of his Honour Judge White should be refused, generally for the reasons given by Justice Jones. I would, however, wish to reserve the question whether this Court could vacate pleas of guilty entered in the Magistrates Court where there has been a clear miscarriage of justice established. There has been no adequate explanation for the delay and there are insufficient prospects of success established here to warrant the granting of this application.

WILLIAMS JA: Given the lengthy delay and the absence of merits, I agree with the order proposed by my colleagues.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application for an extension of time is refused.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (8 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)