It helps not to be prolix.
In Barrett v City of Cockburn [2023] WASC 384 the Court notes
The appellant seeks leave to appeal against judgments of conviction that were entered against him in the Magistrates Court in Fremantle on 24 November 2020 in relation to one charge of parking on a portion of a thoroughfare to which a no parking sign applied, contrary to cl 26(1)(e) of the City of Cockburn Parking & Parking Facilities Law 2007 (Parking Law) (Charge 1), and one charge of driving across a footpath, contrary to s 9.4(b) and s 12.24 of the City of Cockburn (Local Government Act) Local Laws 2000 (Local Laws) (Charge 2). The appellant also seeks leave to appeal against fines of $200 imposed in respect of each of those offences. Finally, the appellant applies for leave to appeal against an order made that he pay the respondent's costs fixed at $8,074.
An appeal notice was filed in this court on 20 April 2022, almost 16 months after the judgments of conviction were entered and sentence was imposed. Accordingly, the appellant requires an extension of time within which to appeal.
Although it is very clear that the appellant feels aggrieved, and not only because he was convicted of these offences, it is a great pity that so much time and effort has been expended on a matter that resulted in a total of $400 in fines, particularly when the appellant had the option of dealing with the matter by paying a modified penalty of $100.
The appeal notice that was filed in this matter, together with enclosures, extends to a total of 30 pages. The purported grounds of appeal are discursive and thus the precise nature of the alleged errors and circumstances that are said to give rise to a conclusion that a miscarriage of justice was occasioned are extremely difficult to identify. It is regrettable that the appellant was also permitted to file and serve a 694-page document, euphemistically referred to as an 'Outline Synopsis' as well as a 60-page 'List of Evidence' after the appeal notice was lodged. These documents have hindered, rather than assisted, the court in resolving this matter.
In an unsuccessful attempt to bring the appellant's complaints about the primary court's decision into focus, on 6 September 2022 a registrar of this court made orders requiring the appellant to file and serve a 10-page summary of the grounds of appeal, cross-referenced to his submissions. In response the appellant filed a four-page document entitled 'Written Submissions Introduction' and a 10-page document entitled 'Written Submissions', both of which fell well short of achieving their desired purpose.
In addition to the above documents, and compounding the lack of focus, the appellant filed a 67-page, colour-coded document entitled 'Summary of All Evidence', together with an application in an appeal (and a supporting affidavit) in which the appellant sought an order that he be permitted to tender the material referred to in that document on the appeal. Further, in accordance with additional orders made by the registrar, the appellant filed a 19-page colour-coded document entitled 'Evidence to Written Submission', which appears to constitute an attempt to correlate the evidence referred to in the 'Summary' with the submissions made in the 'Written Submissions', as well as the 694-page synopsis.
The appeal was listed for directions on 20 February 2023. The purpose of the directions hearing was to see whether the appellant was able to clarify his grounds of appeal, and the contentions made in support of those grounds. It was pointed out to the appellant that because of the sheer volume of material that he sought to rely on there was a risk that the points that he wished to make on the appeal might not be properly identified.
Following the directions hearing, my associate provided the parties with a document setting out, in summary form, the grounds of appeal that the court understood the appellant wished to argue. The content of that document was based on what had been discussed with the appellant at the directions hearing. After considering the document the appellant then made some amendments, added some comments, returned it to the court and provided a copy to the respondent. The court has proceeded on the basis that this document, a copy of which appears as Annexure 1 to these reasons, sets out all the grounds of appeal that the appellant wishes to rely on (Grounds of Appeal).
Further orders were also made at the directions hearing on 20 February 2023. Those orders were made because the grounds of appeal complained, in effect, that a miscarriage of justice was occasioned because the appellant was prohibited from being able to use a computer during his trial and because certain documents that were the subject of a summons to produce were not produced at his trial. The orders required the appellant to provide lists of the documents the appellant contended were on his computer to which he was denied access, and the documents he contended had not been provided under summons. The appellant complied with those orders and provided two lists of documents. In keeping with the history of this matter, the documents were provided three weeks after the ordered date, and one of those documents was 26 pages long.
I have not set out the unfortunate history of this matter simply to criticise an unrepresented appellant. However, and with the benefit of hindsight, the court should not have indulged the appellant. The appellant's approach to this matter has severely hampered my ability to confidently and efficiently identify the key points the appellant wishes to make. ...
Considering all the matters to which I have referred, and with some misgivings because of the lengthy delay, I have reached the view that it is in the interests of justice to grant the appellant an extension of time within which to appeal against the costs order that was made by the magistrate. Accordingly, I would grant an extension of time within which to appeal against the costs order. I would also grant leave to appeal against that order, allow the appeal against the costs order, set aside the order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs and, adopting a broad-brush approach, order that the appellant pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $6,000.
