In the case Palmer v Commissioner of Police, Stuart William Palmer, the applicant, represented himself and sought an extension of time to file for leave to appeal four decisions made by the District Court of Queensland. His application was heard by Bowskill CJ, Bond JA, and Brown AJA in the Court of Appeal, Brisbane, on 5 June 2024.
Justice Bond noted that Palmer’s application did not present any intelligible grounds for the extension. The first three decisions pertained to appeals against Magistrates' orders refusing bail under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886, which the primary judge correctly found did not confer jurisdiction for such appeals. The appeals against these decisions were deemed futile and hence refused. The fourth decision was an appeal against a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court, where Palmer had pleaded guilty to 11 charges involving receiving tainted property and fraud. The primary judge had dismissed Palmer’s appeal, finding the 171-day sentence not manifestly excessive and procedurally fair.
Palmer's extension application was almost 20 months late, with no adequate explanation for the delay. The Court of Appeal applied the principles from R v Tait and found no substantial injustice needing correction and no reasonable arguments of error in the original sentencing or appellate decisions. Though the primary judge had a procedural error concerning the notice requirement under s 224 of the Justices Act 1886, it was deemed immaterial as it did not affect the merits of the case. The application to extend time was therefore refused, and all justices agreed with the decision and the reasons provided.