Michael Edward McDonnell v The Queen - [2014] HCASL 82

MICHAEL EDWARD MCDONNELL
v
THE QUEEN
[2014] HCASL 82
B8/2014

Following a trial in the District Court of Queensland (Samios DCJ and a jury) the applicant was convicted of several counts of unlawful and indecent dealing with a child and one count of common assault. An appeal against the convictions to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Fraser and White JJA and Atkinson J) was dismissed on 11 October 2011.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal. He does not have legal representation and his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) ("the Rules"). The applicant requires a substantial enlargement of time under the Rules in which to file the application[1]. He has filed an affidavit providing a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Compliance with the Rules respecting the time for filing the application should be dispensed with.
[1]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.1.
The applicant was legally represented before the Court of Appeal. He challenged the sufficiency of the particularisation of the offence charged in count 1 and the admission of evidence of misconduct that was adduced to place the offending conduct in context. The draft notice of appeal and written case do not address the Court of Appeal's reasons for the rejection of each ground. The applicant does not identify any question of law suitable for the grant of special leave. The material filed in support of the application consists largely of assertions of fact. The interests of the administration of justice are not engaged by the application. If special leave to appeal were granted the appeal would have no prospect of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
13 May 2014 S.J. Gageler

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Michael Edward McDonnell v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Michael Edward McDonnell v The Queen [2014] HCASL 82
Case: [2014] HCASL 82
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Michael Edward McDonnell v The Queen, the applicant, Michael Edward McDonnell, sought special leave to appeal against his convictions for unlawful and indecent dealing with a child, as well as common assault, which were upheld by the Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal. The applicant was unrepresented and had filed an affidavit explaining the delay in lodging his application, which required a substantial enlargement of time under the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The central issue before the court was whether the applicant's appeal grounds, which included challenges to the sufficiency of the particularisation of the offence charged and the admission of certain evidence, warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. Additionally, the court considered whether any question of law of general public importance was involved and whether the interests of the administration of justice required the appeal to proceed.

The court found that the applicant's appeal did not address the Court of Appeal's reasons for rejecting each ground of appeal, nor did it identify any suitable question of law for the grant of special leave. The material submitted largely consisted of assertions of fact, which did not engage the interests of the administration of justice. The applicant's appeal, if allowed, would have no prospect of success. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, the Registrar was directed to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

The court's decision was grounded in the procedural and substantive deficiencies of the applicant's appeal. The Court of Appeal's reasons for rejecting the appeal grounds were not sufficiently addressed, and the appeal lacked any question of law of general public importance. The interests of justice did not require the appeal to proceed, and there was no prospect of success if special leave were granted. The final order was for the application to be dismissed, effectively concluding the applicant's attempt to appeal his convictions.

Orders