Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Criminal law and procedure - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Application for extension of time to comply with self-executing order - Turns on own facts

Criminal law and procedure - Application for court to examine legal representatives

Application to examine legal representatives dismissed

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 9 June 2014 and has been edited from the transcript.)

1 Before the court today are a number of applications. The first is an application filed by the appellant on 4 June 2014, where she seeks an extension of time to comply with the self-executing order that I made on 10 April 2014 by a period of six weeks.

2 The appellant has also handed up to me applications dated 9 June 2014, in which she applies for an order for this court to examine a barrister, Mr Ian Marshall, and an officer of the Legal Aid Commission, Ms Tina Price.

3 By way of background, Ms Snook pleaded guilty to some dishonesty offences and was subsequently sentenced on 28 May 2013 in the District Court to a suspended imprisonment order. Subsequently, she filed her appeals.

4 The first appeal is CACR 126 of 2013, which is an appeal against conviction. That was filed on 17 June 2013, almost one year ago. The second appeal, CACR 196 of 2013, is an appeal against sentence. That appeal was filed on 4 October 2013, just over eight months ago. In neither appeal has an appellant's case been filed. The delay in both appeals is gross by any standard. The appellant has at all times been self-represented and this has in part explained the delay. A further factor is that she has post-traumatic stress disorder. Another factor is that she has - to use as neutral a term as I can - a fraught relationship with the Legal Aid Commission of Western Australia. Ms Snook has attempted to obtain legal representation, but has as yet been unable to secure the services of counsel.

5 These appeals have come before me for case management on a number of occasions in the past. On at least one occasion, Ms Snook failed to appear, although an excuse has been given for that failure. I have afforded Ms Snook great latitude, having regard to her personal circumstances, her ongoing contact with the Legal Aid Commission and her difficulties engaging counsel. However, on the last occasion this matter was before me, 10 April 2014, it was evident to all, including Ms Snook, that the delay in filing the appellant's case in each appeal could not go on indefinitely. As a result - and with Ms Snook's consent - I made a self-executing order in these terms:

The time for the appellant to file and serve her appellant's case be extended to 4 pm on Tuesday 10 June 2014, failing which the appeal will be dismissed pursuant to rule 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005.

6 Since then, so the material before me indicates, Ms Snook has encountered further difficulties. She received a grant of legal aid to instruct counsel, Mr Ian Marshall. Mr Marshall was given documents, but, on 30 May 2014, indicated that he was unable to accept the brief. At the present time, Ms Snook's grant of legal aid has been terminated. Thus, she finds herself without legal counsel, although she has told me this morning she does have someone to assist her in the preparation of her appellant's case in each of these appeals.

7 I think it is fair to say that Ms Snook will probably have to conduct these appeals herself. There is one last step for her to obtain legal aid, but, at the present time her grants of legal aid have been terminated. While it is not ideal that Ms Snook represent herself in these appeals, it is a reality which she must now face and deal with.

8 There is a public interest in appeals being disposed of expeditiously. These appeals have been going on for far too long and must be resolved. It is also, I believe, in Ms Snook's personal interest for these appeals to be dealt with.

9 It is clear from the documents that Ms Snook has herself prepared in these proceedings, most obviously the extensive documentation that she has prepared with respect to the applications presently before the court, that she has a capacity to provide written submissions. As I have already mentioned, she seems to have the assistance of somebody who may be able to help her in the preparation of an appellant's case.

10 Despite her claims that the issues in respect of these appeals are complicated, that does not appear to me to be the situation. Whatever the complexity of the case, it appears to me that Ms Snook has the capacity to prepare and file appellant's cases.

11 When any court makes an order requiring a party to file documents, it must be strictly obeyed. Extensions of time to comply with self-executing orders, which are orders of last resort, are not to be given lightly, particularly when, as the transcript on the last occasion reveals, it was made very clear to Ms Snook that she had really come to the end of the line and that this was her last chance.

12 Ms Snook has been given ample time by me to file her appellant's cases. However, I accept that Mr Marshall's position has only become known to Ms Snook in the last week or so and that she would not have had the time to prepare and file her appellant's case between the time that she was notified that Mr Marshall was no longer acting and today. Ms Snook has asked for a six-week extension of time of the order that I made on 10 April 2014.

13 I am not prepared to grant an order of that length, but I am prepared to grant an extension of time. In the circumstances, I am prepared to grant an extension of time until 9 July 2014. So that is in one month's time. I do so only on the basis that Mr Marshall had withdrawn from the case on 30 May 2014. Were it not for that, I would not have granted any further extension of time.

14 In respect of the applications which have been handed up today and dated today's date, they will be dismissed. I will assume without deciding, in the appellant's favour, that I have the jurisdiction to grant the orders that she seeks. I must say, having said that, I very much doubt that that is the case. I would, however, not exercise the power to do so because it seems to me that the witnesses Ms Snook intends to call are irrelevant to any issue in respect of the appeal against conviction or sentence. Accordingly, the applications filed on 9 June 2014 in these appeals will be dismissed.