Michael Edward McDonnell v The Queen

[2014] HCASL 82

MICHAEL EDWARD MCDONNELL

v

THE QUEEN

[2014] HCASL 82
B8/2014

1. 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. 

2. 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.

3. 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. 

4. The application is dismissed.

5. 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