SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

[1]  KEANE JA:  On 13 November 2003 the applicant, Mr Cockrell, was convicted on his own plea of 19 offences consisting of three counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception, five counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, one count of destroying evidence, one count of opening a false account, five counts of operating a false account and four counts of fraud.  Some of these offences were contraventions of Commonwealth law and some were contraventions of Queensland law.

[2] In respect of the Commonwealth offences, Mr Cockrell was sentenced to an effective sentence of three and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months.  In respect of the State offences, he was sentenced to an effective sentence of six years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be considered for post prison community based release after serving two years in actual custody.  A period of 596 days was declared to be time already served.  A further period of one month's imprisonment was imposed to be served cumulatively in respect of the offence of destruction of evidence.

[3] On 15 July 2009 Mr Cockrell applied for an extension of time within which to appeal against his convictions and sentence.  He seeks to have his convictions set aside on the basis that "the plea agreement entered into between I [sic] and the Crown was invalidated by later acts".

The delay

[4] Mr Cockrell asserts that the delay attending this attempt to appeal is explained by the circumstance that he was suffering severe depression from 20 October 2005 to 9 May 2009 as a result of being "immigration detained" during this period.  It may be noted here that there is no medical evidence to support the assertion that Mr Cockrell's condition was such as to prevent him taking action in relation to his convictions at an earlier point in time.  Mr Cockrell also asserts that he was told "not to worry" about "his case" when he was taken into immigration detention on 20 October 2005.  How this advice could have led to a delay of more than three and a half years in bringing the present application is not explained.

[5] The explanation for the delay which Mr Cockrell has put forward is not convincing.  Mr Cockrell did not mention in his application or written submissions that he has been engaged in protracted litigation in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal,[1] the Federal Court of Australia,[2] and the High Court.[3]  His medical condition has evidently not been an impediment to his prosecution of a welter of litigation which was ultimately characterised by Rares J on 27 March 2009 as "frivolous, vexatious, embarrassing and [lacking] any support …"[4]

[6] As it happens there are other matters of importance, also not mentioned by Mr Cockrell in his application and written submissions, to which reference must be made.

The history of proceedings since 2003

[7] On 20 September 2004 Mr Cockrell instituted proceedings seeking to appeal against his convictions and sentences.  On 7 October 2004 he was granted bail pending the hearing of his applications.  At that time he had been in custody in relation to the charges since 27 March 2002, so that he had served approximately two years and seven months in actual custody.

[8] On 11 March 2005 this Court granted an extension of time within which to appeal against the Queensland offences and set aside the pleas of guilty and allowed the appeal in respect of those convictions because of a procedural irregularity in the presentation of the indictments.[5]  This Court also declared that the cumulative sentence of one month imprisonment had now been served.[6]

[9] On 17 March 2005 Mr Cockrell made a further application for an extension of time within which to appeal.

[10]  On 2 August 2005 this Court refused that application.[7]

[11]  On 10 March 2005 Mr Cockrell was admitted to parole under s 19AL(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).  His parole was completed on 26 September 2005.[8]

The futility of the present application

[12]  In light of the history of the matter since 20 September 2004, which Mr Cockrell did not mention in the material in support of the present application, it is difficult to see how it can be suggested that there is any good reason to grant the extension of time which Mr Cockrell seeks.[9]

[13]  So far as the issue of the severity of the sentences is concerned, all the sentences imposed on 13 November 2003 have been served.  There can be no utility in a reconsideration of those sentences.

[14]  As to the convictions for the Commonwealth offences, it is said that a plea agreement led to his convictions in 2003, and that this agreement was nullified by his arrest in September 2005 on other charges.  These charges, which were brought under State law, were not pursued.  Mr Cockrell asserts that he was detained by the immigration authorities from October 2005 until he was deported to the United States of America in May 2009.

[15]  Mr Cockrell seeks to argue that his arrest in 2005 was contrary to the agreement he made to plead guilty to the charges in 2003 and that this breach of contract vitiated his pleas of guilty and convictions in respect of the Commonwealth offences.  This argument is founded on the proposition that the Crown agreed with Mr Cockrell that, in return for his pleas of guilty on 13 November 2003, he would not be charged with offences other than those to which he pleaded guilty on that date. 

[16]  There are four difficulties with this argument.  First, there is no evidence of an express agreement to that effect by the prosecuting authorities; and there is no reason why they should be taken to have impliedly agreed that any other charges of contravention of State law would not be pursued against Mr Cockrell at a later time if there was evidence of offending sufficient to warrant that course.  Secondly, breach of such an agreement by the prosecuting authorities might lead to a stay of the prosecution sought to be brought,[10] but it would not be a ground for setting aside a conviction regularly entered.  Thirdly, even if the officers of the prosecuting authorities had made such an agreement with Mr Cockrell, Mr Cockrell himself repudiated that agreement when he applied to have his pleas of guilty and his convictions for the State offences set aside.  Fourthly, so far as the Commonwealth offences are concerned, there is no reason to doubt that Mr Cockrell was guilty of those offences in accordance with his pleas of guilty.

[17]  Mr Cockrell cannot demonstrate that allowing his convictions for the Commonwealth offences to stand might involve a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion and order

[18]  No good reason has been shown to warrant the grant of the extension of time sought by Mr Cockrell.

[19]  The application for an extension of time should be refused.

[20]  HOLMES JA:  I agree with the reasons of Keane JA and the order he proposes.

[21]  MUIR JA:  I agree with the reasons of Keane JA and with his proposed order.