Weldon v R (No 2)

BATHURST CJ: Consequent upon the refusal of the application for the adjournment, the applicant’s solicitor withdrew from the proceedings. In discussion which ensued between the applicant and the bench, the applicant indicated that he wished to avail himself of a work release program which he believes is available to him to save sufficient funds to enable him to prosecute his appeal.

In the circumstances, in my view, the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. It should be emphasised that this does not preclude the applicant making a further application for leave to appeal together with an extension of time within which to lodge the notice of application. Such an application will be dealt with having regard to the principles laid down in Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 at [32]-[33].

I would only add two matters. First, whilst we cannot advise the applicant, if such an application was made he would be well advised to put on evidence explaining that at the time the application came on for hearing he did not have funds but that subsequently through his work release program, he saved sufficient funds to enable him to prosecute the appeal.

Second, that if the applicant is otherwise eligible for a work release program, the events of today should not affect his eligibility.

In those circumstances, I would dismiss the application for leave.

GARLING J: I agree with the Chief Justice.

WRIGHT J: I agree with the Chief Justice.

BATHURST CJ: Mr Weldon you have heard what we have said. I would only recommend that if you do make another application for leave, you do give a more detailed explanation that has been given today of why you were not in a position to prosecute the appeal earlier. Thank you.

APPLICANT: Yes your Honour.