R v Everett [1998] QCA 455

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1998-12-02|Before: Murdo P, Pincus JA, Chesterman J

The applicant is a relatively young man of 33 years of age and does not have a criminal history. One of the complications of the case was that on the plea of guilty His Honour had before him below a number of versions which were not necessarily consistent as to what happened. It does not appear to me that, in the circumstances of the present case, these conflicts were critical. The Judge seemed to proceed on the basis that the version of events put forward by counsel for the defence was substantially correct.

It is not in every case that this Court will grant an extension of time where the basis of the application is that the applicant says he did not know he might be able to appeal.

Mr Everett has informed us today, in effect, that he knew nothing about appeals. Except where the applicant is suffering some particular disability, such an assertion often seems improbable, as most prisoners no doubt know that there are courts which hear trials and there are courts which hear appeals. In the present case, according to the applicant's material, he asked his solicitor what course of action could be taken to alter the decision - meaning the sentencing decision - and he was told that nothing more could be done. Assuming that occurred, it presumably reflected a view that the sentence could not be challenged successfully.

In my opinion, it is proper to take into account against the applicant the substantial delay which has ensued since April, when he was sentenced. Had he suffered any genuine sense of grievance one would have expected him to ascertain much earlier than he did that there was a possibility of approaching this Court. It suggests to me a lack of interest in the matter reflecting, perhaps, a sense that the treatment he received was proper. Whether or not that is so, as a matter of discretion, I would not be inclined, on this application, to extend the time. It does not seem to me that any satisfactory reason has been given for extending it, nor does it appear that there is any reasonable prospect of success on the challenge to the sentence imposed, one of four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 15 months.

As to the conviction, I have already mentioned and it seems to me correct that the applicant does not seriously wish to challenge that. I would therefore simply refuse the application.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by Justice Pincus.

THE PRESIDENT: The order is that the application is refused.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (7 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)