R v Phillips

This was an application for an extension of time for leave to appeal. In granting leave to appeal, the court considered that the applicant’s lack of legal representation and his being unaware of the limitation period until just before its lapse provided a “good reason” for his delay in bringing the appeal; and that the interests of justice favoured that the extension be granted, in view of the imminent and “dire” consequences of the conviction of a serious offence. Interestingly, this determination was made despite the court’s acknowledgement that any provisional determination of the proposed ground of appeal required an independent assessment by the court of the evidence, and that there was not a transcript of the evidence led at trial before the Court of Appeal.

Philippides and McMurdo JJA and Boddice J

12 May 2017

Here, the applicant sought an extension of time within which to appeal his conviction for manslaughter, on the basis that the jury’s verdict was unreasonable or unsupportable having regard to the evidence. He had been sentenced to 12 years and six months’ imprisonment with an automatic declaration of a serious violent offence. [3]. The application was opposed by the Crown on the basis that the appeal did not have any prospects of success. [6]. To obtain an extension of time within which to appeal the conviction, it was incumbent upon him to show good reason for the delay in filing a Notice of Appeal within time and that it was in the interests of justice that the extension be granted.

With reference to the requirements for an extension of time the court noted that the extension of time sought was minimal and that the applicant’s failure to file the Notice of Appeal within time had been attributed to his lack of legal representation and his being unaware of the limitation period until just prior to its lapse. In those circumstances the court was of the view that “good reason” had been shown for the delay. [15].

Regarding whether it was in the interests of justice that the extension be granted, it was observed that any provisional determination of the proposed ground of appeal required the Court to independently assess the evidence to ascertain whether it was open to the jury, upon the whole of the evidence, to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was guilty of manslaughter: see R v SCH [2015] QCA 38, [7] – a difficult exercise without access to a transcript of the evidence led at trial. [17]. Nonetheless in view of the imminent and “dire” consequences of the applicant’s conviction of a serious offence after having been acquitted of murder, the court concluded that it was in the interests of justice that the applicant be afforded the opportunity to pursue an appeal against such a conviction. [19].

The application for leave to extend the time to appeal the conviction was allowed on that basis. [20].

A de Jersey