Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Weldon v R (No 2) [2019] NSWCCA 206 Hearing dates: 7 August 2019 Date of orders: 07 August 2019 Decision date: 07 August 2019 Before: Bathurst CJ at [1] and [8]; Garling J at [6]; Wright J at [7] Decision: Dismiss application for leave to appeal. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Application for adjournment refused – Solicitor withdrew – Applicant has insufficient funds to prosecute appeal – Dismiss application for leave to appeal. Legislation Cited: Nil Cases Cited: Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Lionel Robert Weldon (applicant) The Crown (respondent) Representation: Counsel: Applicant (self-represented) M England (respondent) Solicitors: Applicant (self-represented) Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (respondent) File Number(s): 2017/72615 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Common Law Citation: Nil Date of Decision: 1 June 2018 Before: Judge Wilson File Number(s): 2017/72615 Judgment 1. 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. 2. 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]. 3. 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. 4. Second, that if the applicant is otherwise eligible for a work release program, the events of today should not affect his eligibility. 5. In those circumstances, I would dismiss the application for leave. 6. GARLING J: I agree with the Chief Justice. 7. WRIGHT J: I agree with the Chief Justice. 8. 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. 9. APPLICANT: Yes your Honour. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 27 August 2019