SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

1. THE COURT: This is an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against conviction for the supply of heroin.  The applicant was convicted on 15 May 2000.  The application for leave to appeal was received more than seven months later on 19 December 2000.  An appeal was also lodged.  Curiously, it is date stamped by the Supreme Court on the 6 December 2000 but also stamped as being received on 19 December 2000.  In any event it is at least six months out of time, the last date for filing being 15 June 2000.  The applicant, whose English is very poor, was represented at trial, but represented himself in this court.  He was asked if he wished the application to be adjourned to permit Legal Aid to assess an application for aid lodged 10 days before the hearing or to have the assistance of an interpreter.  In both cases the offer was refused because of the applicant’s apparent belief that all available lawyers and interpreters are in league with the police and untrustworthy.  He expressed a preference for proceeding on his own.

2. His submissions were mainly in writing. The submissions reveal a poor grasp of the English language and we have had considerable difficulty in attempting to discern the points that the applicant has attempted to make. In summary, the Court has been provided with one paragraph of explanation on the application for extension of time, three pages of argument on the face of the notice of appeal, and a 12-page outline of argument. We have also read the Crown’s outline of argument and the summing-up of the learned trial Judge. The applicant also made oral submissions the gist of which with some difficulty we believe we have comprehended.

3. The materials give a reasonable idea of the nature of the complaints that the applicant wishes to raise as the basis of his appeal if time is extended. None of these come close to raising any ground which is in the least promising or any reason why further investigation would seem to be justified.

Case

4. The applicant was convicted by a jury. We discern from the summing-up that the case was based on both direct and circumstantial evidence. It included the evidence of an accomplice in relation to whom correct directions were given that arrangements were made for a meeting at which heroin would be supplied to a buyer and that the applicant and another man turned up at the arranged place. A supply of about 60 grams was effected but not by the applicant personally. There was evidence of various activities by the applicant at and around the scene suggestive of his being involved in the supply and that he told lies about these matters when apprehended by the police. The applicant neither gave nor called evidence in his defence.

Points on Appeal

5. The written submissions consist of a series of assertions relating to a supposed “set up” of the applicant by the Federal Police and one Tri Nguyen. Wide-ranging conspiracies are alleged. These extend to include interpreters used both in records of interview and at the trial, police, associates of the applicant and even the applicant’s own legal representatives.

6. In oral submissions the central plank of the complaint focussed on a tape-recorded interview given by the applicant on 26 May 1999. The applicant alleges the original tape he was provided with was stolen from his property at the prison where he was on remand awaiting trial and a different or edited interview with the applicant substituted. This alleged altered tape was played to the jury at the trial.

7. We cannot see how this allegation or indeed, any of the others gives rise to an arguable appeal. The supposed alteration of the tape (which seems to be concerned with the omission of an early part of the interview and the substitution of a different interpreter from the one in fact present) was made known by the applicant to his counsel at the trial and at least in the case of the tape, counsel for the respondent referred us to part of the transcript where the applicant’s counsel cross-examined the interpreter about the allegation. In any case the tape used did not contain admissions and was relied on for “probative lies”.

8. All this must be seen against the background that the applicant chose not to give evidence at his trial about this or any other matter, and in the absence of some special ground has no right to ask this court to act on evidence that was not given below.

Extension of time

9. Even allowing for communication difficulties, the lateness of the proposed appeal is not sufficiently explained. In the application for an extension of time the explanation given is as follows:

"No access to appeal documents because of my ethnicity and confusion (Vietnamese).  I intend to represent myself in these matters and as a foreigner I had to have the time to come to terms with the process involved".

10. There was no doubt the applicant had language difficulties and would need more than the usual time to prepare and file his appeal. To this should be added the fact that time was lost on an unsuccessful application for legal aid, but a time lag of more than six months between conviction and filing the application is not justified on these grounds alone.

11. During argument more insight was given when the applicant indicated that he probably would have “worn” the sentence but for the fact that in November 2000 he received a deportation notice from the Department of Immigration, the effect of which was perceived by the applicant to be that he would not be released at his earliest eligible parole date in November this year, but would be detained in custody pending finalisation of the deportation proceedings.

12. When asked directly whether the decision to appeal was made in response to the deportation proceedings, the applicant said he would have appealed anyway. However, one is left with an overall unsatisfactory explanation.

Conclusion

13. In all the circumstances the delay is insufficiently explained and there is no basis for thinking that there has been any miscarriage of justice. The application for an extension of time within which to appeal is dismissed.