R v Calcedo [2001] VSCA 234 (11 December 2001)

Last Updated: 20 December 2001

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 397 of 2000

THE QUEEN
v.
PAUL CALCEDO

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, PHILLIPS and BATT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 December 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 December 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[ 2001] VSCA 234

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Applications for leave to appeal - Applicant at large but whereabouts unknown - Twice failing to appear - Applications dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	No appearance

BROOKING, J.A.: (Delivering the judgment of the Court.)

1. On 27 November 2000 a County Court jury found Paul Calcedo guilty of theft. He was sentenced on 1 December 2000. He lodged applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The solicitors acting for him were Simon English & Co.
2. The applicant, having served his sentence, was released from custody on 12 April 2001. Certain information has been supplied to us by the Registrar and we think we may properly act on this information. According to the Registrar Simon English & Co. Informed the Registry on 7 May 2001 that Calcedo had been released from custody and wished to abandon his applications. The solicitor added that he was unaware of his client's whereabouts and was relying on the client to contact the solicitor so that the solicitor could arrange for him to sign notices of abandonment.
3. On 17 September 2001 the solicitor supplied the Registrar with an affidavit as the Registrar had requested. According to the affidavit the solicitor had not heard from Calcedo since his release from custody on 12 April and no longer acted for him.
4. The affidavit made no mention of the events of 7 May 2001 and the solicitor told the Registrar he could not recall whether they had taken place.
5. The Office of Public Prosecutions, without conceding that the Crown has any responsibility in this regard, has made inquiries of the police and filed an affidavit by the informant, according to which he has searched the police computer database and determined from that search that the Victoria Police currently have no reliable address for Calcedo and that he is the subject of a current "whereabouts desired" request in respect of an intervention order made against him on 21 July 2001. A check search has been made extremely recently and disclosed no further relevant information. In addition, the informant has discussed Calcedo's whereabouts with a police informer, who told him that he had spoken to Calcedo about last July in St Kilda, and also told the informant that Calcedo was then running a number of prostitutes in the St Kilda area and he, the informer, could not provide any information as to Calcedo's address.
6. The informant further deposes that the charges which he laid against Calcedo included many traffic offences and that these have been adjourned by the County Court sine die and are still outstanding. He says that he can make no further inquiries within the limits of the available resources.
7. The Registry have made a check of the prisoner identification management system of the Office of Corrections, which shows that Calcedo supplied no emergency contact details while in custody.
8. The present applications came before the Court on 19 September last, when there being no appearance by or for Calcedo they were adjourned. A letter has been sent by the Registry to Calcedo's last known address advising him that the applications have been fixed for hearing today.
9. When the application came on before us this morning there was again no appearance by or for Calcedo. We think that our proper course is to dismiss both applications and we do so.
---