Legal Research
Cases
R v Alexanderson

R v Alexanderson

Case [2001] QCA 400 24 September 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2001] QCA 400

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
JONES J
DOUGLAS J

CA No 155 of 2001

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN RAYMOND ALEXANDERSON

CA No 156 of 2001

THE QUEEN

ALLAN DAVID MacQUEEN

CA No 196 of 2001

THE QUEEN

SHANE ALLAN BARLOW

CA No 197 of 2001

THE QUEEN

GLENN PATRICK FARR

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/09/2001

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: The Court has, before it, four applications for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction. The four applicants are Alexanderson, MacQueen, Farr and Barlow. Although there are some minor points of distinction so far as Barlow is concerned the essential issues are the same in each of the cases.

It is necessary, in order to understand the present application, to say something of the relevant history. On 24 March 1993 a prisoner by the name of Vosmaer was killed in the Sir David Longland's Correction Centre. Two fellow prisoners, Nixon and Garrett, pleaded guilty to murder on arraignment. The four applicants, also fellow prisoners, pleaded not guilty to murder and went to trial.

There was evidence before the jury that Alexanderson, MacQueen and Farr, to varying degrees, participated in the savage beating of Vosmaer. The case against Barlow was different to the extent that it was conceded that he was not an actual assailant. The Crown relied on section 8 of the Criminal Code and the evidence against him was substantially to the effect that he was responsible for setting the scene in which the killing occurred.

At the trial the jury returned verdicts of guilty of murder against Alexanderson, MacQueen and Farr and a verdict of guilty of manslaughter against Barlow. In the summing-up it was put to the jury that with respect to Alexanderson, MacQueen and Farr the case was essentially one of murder or nothing; that appears to be the way defence counsel conducted the case. Each of the four then appealed to the Court of Appeal.

For present purposes it is sufficient to say that each of Alexanderson, MacQueen and Farr primarily relied on that appeal on the ground that the evidence against each was so unsatisfactory that the verdict of the jury had to be regarded as unsafe and unsatisfactory; that was the substantive matter then argued. That submission was based on the reasoning of the High Court in the then recent decision of M v. The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 487.

The appeals by Alexanderson, MacQueen and Farr were dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 8 March 1996. However, that Court, on that date, allowed the appeal by Barlow and quashed his conviction for manslaughter. That conclusion was primarily based on the proposition that a verdict of manslaughter was not open under section 8 given the fact that all of the others had been convicted of murder.

Alexanderson, MacQueen and Farr then applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court and that application was refused on 20 June 1996. However, on that date leave to appeal…

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 R v Alexanderson

Details

AGLC: R v Alexanderson [2001] QCA 400
Case: [2001] QCA 400
Decision Date: 24/09/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal in Queensland heard four separate applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction brought by Alexanderson, MacQueen, Farr and Barlow. These applicants had previously been convicted in relation to the death of a prisoner, Vosmaer, at Sir David Longland's Correction Centre. Two other prisoners, Nixon and Garrett, had pleaded guilty to murder, while the four applicants pleaded not guilty and were found guilty by a jury. The applicants sought to appeal on the basis of the High Court decision in Gilbert v The Queen, which held that in certain circumstances, manslaughter should have been left as an option for the jury. The Crown argued that the applicants' right of appeal had been exhausted and that the Court of Appeal did not have the jurisdiction to hear a second appeal on the merits.

The Court of Appeal considered the statutory provisions that confer appellate jurisdiction on the Court, particularly section 668 of the Criminal Code, which grants a convicted person a right of appeal, and the decisions of the High Court and other jurisdictions on the matter of a second appeal on the merits. The Court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal, and therefore, it was not necessary to consider other issues related to the applications for extensions of time. The Court dismissed all four applications.

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal found that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear a second appeal on the merits and dismissed the applications for extensions of time to appeal against conviction. The applicants' right of appeal had been exhausted, and the Court could not entertain a further appeal on the merits, even in light of the High Court decision in Gilbert v The Queen. The Court followed the principle established in previous decisions that once the right of appeal has been exercised and is unsuccessful, a convicted person may not pursue a second appeal on the merits.

Orders