R v Ali

[2003] QCA 117

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Ali [2003] QCA 117
PARTIES:	R v ALI, Raymond Akhtar (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 371 of 2002 SC No 163 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Conviction)
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	18 March 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 March 2003
JUDGES:	McPherson and Davies JJA and White J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - TIME FOR APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME - OTHER MATTERS- where appellant had previously appealed his conviction - where previous appeal dismissed - where new grounds of appeal not such that they could not have been raised at previous appeal - whether appellant can pursue second appeal
R v Alexanderson, MacQueen, Barlow and Farr [2001] QCA 400; CA No 155 of 2001, CA No 156 of 2001, CA No 196 of 2001, CA No 197 of 2001, 24 September 2001, followed
R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 401; CA No 205 of 2001,

25 September 2001, followed

R v Grierson (1938) 60 CLR 431, followed

R v Harms [2002] QCA 99; CA No 36 of 2002, 19 March

2002, followed

R v Harms [2003] QCA 14; CA No 299 of 2002, 31 January

2003, followed

R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 QdR 601, distinguished

R v Regazzoli [2001] QCA 482; CA No 223 of 2001,

9 November 2001, followed

COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S G Bain for respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the appellant's conviction for

10

murder on 2 November 2000. However, the appellant appealed earlier against that conviction which was dismissed by this Court on 17 August 2001. This application was filed on

19 November 2002, one year and four months after his appeal

against conviction was dismissed and more than two years after

20

he was convicted. It proposes a notice of appeal containing a
large number of grounds, almost all of them critical of the
way in which the appellant's defence was conducted at his
trial. None of them raises any matter which could not have

been raised on his appeal.

30

The fact that the appellant has previously appealed to this application.

40

This Court has held now on many occasions that once an appeal such as this has been unsuccessful the right of appeal is thereby exhausted and a convicted person may not pursue a second appeal on the merits. The following are recent cases in this Court in which that principle has been applied: R v

50

Alexanderson, MacQueen, Barlow and Farr R v Harms

[2001] QCA 400; [2002] QCA 99; and R v Harms [2003] QCA 14. In those cases this Court has followed the decision of the High Court in R v Grierson (1938) 60 CLR 431.

2  60

This is not a case in which, on the limited basis considered by this Court in R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601 it is being asked to reconsider its earlier perfected decision. Rather, it is one in which the appellant seeks to argue a large number

of grounds which his experienced counsel on the appeal against	10
conviction heard by this Court on 11 July 2001 chose not to argue.
For reasons which are unexplained, or at least not
satisfactorily explained, the applicant comes before this	20
Court on this occasion unrepresented legally. He sought to
have represent him a person who is not a lawyer but who
apparently prepared a long outline of argument which I have read. The application to have that person represent him on the hearing was refused. It is not sought on this application	30
to reargue the correctness of the decisions of this Court to which I have referred and there is no basis contained in any of the material to which I have referred which would establish
any basis for reconsideration of those decisions.
40
On the contrary, what plainly emerges from the appellant's
written outline is that, after two years of consideration, he
now regrets the way in which his trial was conducted including
his considered decision not to give evidence himself and
wishes to have a new trial conducted in some other way.	50
In my opinion the application should be dismissed.
McPHERSON JA: I agree.

3  60

WHITE J: I agree also.

McPHERSON JA: The application is dismissed.

-----	10
20
30
40
50

4  60