R v Woodman[2014] QCA 243

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES JA

MORRISON JA

MULLINS J

CA No 135 of 2014

DC No 173 of 2008

THE QUEEN

v

WOODMAN, Daniel ThomasApplicant

BRISBANE 

MONDAY, 29 SEPTEMBER 2014

HOLMES JA:  The application for an extension of time must be refused.  These are the reasons.  The applicant pleaded guilty in 2008 to an offence of grievous bodily harm with intent and was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment.  On the application for an extension of time, the document itself refers to an application for an extension of time to leave to appeal against sentence only, but an attached document refers to matters which appear to concern conviction.  In any event, there is a background to the application which bears on its disposition.

In 2009 the applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence and appealed against his conviction.  His application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed, as was the appeal against conviction which, although not formally abandoned, was not argued: see R v Woodman [2009] QCA 197.  In 2010, the applicant sought an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal against sentence.  White JA, with whom the other members of the Court agreed,  (R v Woodman [2010] QCA 162) noted that the applicant had ticked both the sentence and conviction boxes on the form and that some of the submissions seemed to be directed indiscriminately at the conduct of a trial which was never held.  Nonetheless, the applicant confirmed that he sought an extension of time in respect of sentence only.  White JA noted that nothing fresh had been raised and the application for leave to appeal and the merits of any appeal had been fully considered.  Accordingly, the application for an extension of time was refused.

In 2013, the applicant filed yet another application for leave to appeal against sentence, making submissions which appeared to go both to sentence and to factual matters underpinning his conviction.  However, he confirmed that he did not seek to appeal against conviction.  The Court, relying on R v Upson (No 2) [2013] QCA 149, noted that it lacked jurisdiction to hear a second application for leave to appeal against sentence where a previous application had been refused on the merits.  Accordingly, it refused the application: R v Woodman [2013] QCA 359.  The present application so far as it concerns an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for precisely the same reason.

The document to which I previously referred, which is attached to the application for an extension of time, raises similar issues to some that Justice White mentioned.  It says, among other things, that the applicant was not given crucial forensic evidence and that a verdict of accident should have been returned.  Invited to address the Court today, the applicant said that his basis for applying was that he did not mean to commit grievous bodily harm.  There was no intent because he was drunk.  But what he has said to us and what is contained in his material raised no basis on which his plea of guilty could or should be set aside.  Since any appeal could have no prospect of success without such a basis being shown, the application for an extension of time in this regard should be refused.

MORRISON JA:  I agree.

MULLINS J:  I agree.

HOLMES JA:  Mr Woodman, in case it’s not entirely clear to you, this Court simply can't deal with your application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence.  We have no power to do it and it would not be a good thing for you to keep wasting the Court’s time with that kind of application.  It might lead to the Court having to consider making an order preventing you from doing so.  At any rate, the order is that the application is refused.  Thank you.

APPELLANT:  Thank you.