George Christopher Dillas v R

• Jurisdiction: Bermuda
• Judgment Date: 18 July 1991
• Date: 18 July 1991
• Docket Number: Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1991
• Court: Court of Appeal (Bermuda)

In the Court of Appeal for Bermuda

Roberts, P.

Huggins, J.A.

Georges, J.A.

Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1991

George Christopher Dillas

Appellant

and

The Queen

Respondent

Miss Browne, Michael Scott for the Applicant

Barrie Meade Attorney General's Chambers for the Respondent

R v Matheson (1958) Cr App R 145

R v Bailey (1961) Cr App R 31

R v Walton (1977) Cr App R 25

R v Kiszko (1978) Cr App R 42

Appeal against conviction and sentence of life imprisonment — Murder — Proper grounds for appeal not submitted by counsel

JUDGMENT

Roberts, P.

Preliminary

At the conclusion of the hearing, we dismissed the applications of the Defendant for leave to appeal against his sentence and conviction and said that we would give our reasons later.

The Applicant was convicted, after a trial before a jury, on 25th July, 1990, of the offence of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

The count which he faced was of premeditated murder, contrary to section 286 A of the Criminal Code, in the following terms:-

‘Christopher George Dillas, between the 29th day of September, 1988 and the 2nd day of October, 1988 in Warwick Parish did with premeditation kill another person, namely Richard Stuart Wilkic.’

The applicant, who pleaded not guilty to the charge, entered a Notice of Appeal against both sentence and conviction on 13th August, 1990, within the 21 days allowed by the rules for the lodging of an appeal. On Criminal Form 2, the applicant stated ‘Grounds for the conviction will be submitted by the lawyer at a later date’. The form told him that he Should ‘state as clearly and concisely as possible the grounds on which you desire to appeal’. No such grounds were entered by the applicant until 8th July, 1991, almost eleven months later, when a Notice of so called “Supplementary Grounds of Appeal” was entered by his counsel.

Notwithstanding the obvious defect in the applicant's failure to set out, even in broad terms, the grounds of his appeal, the trial judge dealt with the matter and refused leave to appeal to the applicant on 15th November, 1990.

If an accused is not represented, simple grounds will suffice. If he is, it is reasonable to expect a more detailed setting out of his grounds. It is emphasized that counsel must submit these grounds within the period allowed for the submission of a notice, namely 21 days. If this is not done, the single judge, when deciding whether or not to grant leave to appeal, is left to guess at what the grounds of appeal would be if they had been properly drawn.

This appeal was set down for hearing in March by this court, but postponed at the request of the defence. There had still been no submission of grounds. These did not appear until 8th July. The explanation offered is that counsel for the applicant was too busy co give his proper attention to the grounds.

We should make it clear that we do not accept this as a proper reason for the omission to submit proper reasons for an appeal. By a majority, we allowed this appeal to proceed with some...