Application by Jens Grandt Mosegaard pursuant to s 78(1) Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001

Jens Grandt Mosegaard sought an inquiry into his convictions under section 78(1) of the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001, alleging that the evidence was destroyed or contaminated by police officers, and that his legal counsel and the judicial officer were corrupt and incompetent. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had to determine whether Mosegaard had established incontrovertible proof of his innocence to warrant an inquiry.

The legal issues before the court were whether Mosegaard had demonstrated a reasonable possibility of his innocence to the satisfaction of the court, and if the evidence of contamination or destruction of evidence was sufficient to warrant an inquiry. The court had to consider the credibility and reliability of Mosegaard's claims and the strength of the evidence presented to support his application.

The court found that Mosegaard had not presented sufficient evidence to satisfy the threshold for an inquiry under section 78(1) of the Act. The court was not satisfied that Mosegaard had established a reasonable possibility of his innocence, nor had he provided convincing evidence that the alleged contamination or destruction of evidence was significant enough to affect the outcome of his trial. The court also dismissed Mosegaard's allegations of corruption and incompetence against his legal counsel and the judicial officer, finding that these claims were not substantiated by the evidence presented. The court concluded that Mosegaard had not met the necessary criteria for an inquiry into his convictions.

The court dismissed Mosegaard's application for an inquiry into his convictions, finding that he had not demonstrated a reasonable possibility of his innocence or provided sufficient evidence of contamination or destruction of evidence. The court further found that Mosegaard's allegations of corruption and incompetence against his legal counsel and the judicial officer were unsubstantiated. The application was therefore dismissed with no orders for costs.