R v Ali

Case [2008] QCA 39


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ali [2008] QCA 39

PARTIES:

R
v
ALI, Raymond Akhtar
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 237 of 2007
SC No 163 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Conviction)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

4 March 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

4 March 2008

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Atkinson J and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – WHEN APPEAL LIES – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted of murder – where applicant had previously appealed to this Court – where appeal was previously dismissed – where applicant sought to again appeal to this Court – whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the second appeal

Ali v R [2005] HCA 8, referred to
Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431; [1938] HC A 45, followed
R v Alexanderson & Ors
[2001] QCA 400, applied
R v Allen [1994] 1 Qd R 526, distinguished
R v Ali
[2001] QCA 331, referred to
R v Nudd [2007] QCA 40, followed
R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601; [1996] QCA 235, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA:  The applicant applies for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction for murder and against convictions for improperly interfering with a corpse and concealing the birth of a child on 2 November 2000. 

The applicant had earlier appealed against his conviction on grounds that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and that there had been a miscarriage of justice through erroneous directions by the trial Judge in relation to lies and matters that were said to indicate the applicant's consciousness of guilt.  That appeal was dismissed by this Court on 17 August 2001.(See R v Ali [2001] QCA 331).

The applicant appealed from that decision to the High Court contending that there had been a miscarriage of justice in that he was not tried fairly because of the alleged incompetence of trial counsel.  That appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 8 March 2005.  (Ali v R [2005] HCA 8).

Before the applicant's appeal to the High Court was determined, the applicant sought to appeal again from his convictions.  On 18 March 2003 this Court dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time within which to bring that proposed appeal.  (R v Ali [2003] QCA 117). The Court held that the proposed appeal was incompetent because once an appeal against conviction had been unsuccessful the right of appeal was exhausted. The Court followed earlier decisions of this Court to the same effect which applied the High…

Continue reading R v Ali

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Ali [2008] QCA 39
Case
[2008] QCA 39
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ali involves a defendant who was convicted of murder and had previously appealed to the Queensland Court of Appeal. This second appeal sought to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss the initial appeal. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred in dismissing the initial appeal, and thus, the Court of Appeal should grant permission for a second appeal. The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether it had jurisdiction to hear a second appeal from a conviction already subject to an earlier unsuccessful appeal.

The Court of Appeal examined the principles of double jeopardy and the statutory framework governing appeals in Queensland. It noted that the Queensland Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to hear appeals from convictions in the Supreme Court, but the Court also operates within the constraints of ensuring finality in legal proceedings. The Court found that the principles of double jeopardy, which prevent a person from being tried again for the same offence after a valid acquittal or conviction, and the statutory provisions governing appeals, did not support the granting of a second appeal. The Court of Appeal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the second appeal, as doing so would undermine the finality and integrity of the judicial process.

In light of the Court of Appeal's reasoning, the application for a second appeal was refused. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the finality of judicial decisions to ensure the proper administration of justice. The Court held that the earlier dismissal of the initial appeal was final and conclusive, and no further appeal could be entertained without a substantial miscarriage of justice or an error of law of the highest magnitude. Therefore, the Court of Appeal did not grant the applicant's request for a second appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.