R v Arnold

[2003] QCA 448

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J

WILSON J

CA No 189 of 2003
THE QUEEN
v.

DAVID LYALL ARNOLD	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 15/10/2003
JUDGMENT
APPLICANT conducted his own case

MR C W HEATON (instructed by the Director of Public

Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the Crown

McPHERSON JA: Yes, well the Court has considered what you	10
have said, and we are of the opinion that on the last occasion
the Court considered, in detail, what was submitted by you in
writing. The Court is also of opinion that constitutes a
sufficient hearing and further, that if it matters, there was
no application to have the matter heard orally as distinct	20
from having the Court, as a matter of grace, consider the
further written submissions, which you presented to the Court
and which were considered in detail in paragraphs 11 and
following of the reasons of the Court on the last occasion,
that is, the reasons of this Court in hearing your initial	30
appeal against conviction. Your appeal, or if it is an application, your application is dismissed, this Court having no jurisdiction to hear it. That is the order of the Court.

----- 40
50
2 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Arnold, the appellant, David Lyall Arnold, brought an appeal against his conviction before the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, appearing pro se, contested the decision of a lower court which had convicted him. The Court of Appeal, comprising McPherson JA, Mackenzie J, and Wilson J, was tasked with determining whether the appellant's application for further review was valid and warranted.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the appellant's written submissions constituted a sufficient hearing for the Court to exercise its jurisdiction over his appeal. The Court also had to consider whether there was an appropriate application for an oral hearing, as opposed to the Court considering the submissions purely as a matter of grace. The appellant's submissions were closely examined in light of the previous detailed considerations of the Court in the initial appeal against his conviction.

The Court found that the appellant's written submissions did not constitute a sufficient hearing to warrant further review, as the Court had already considered them in detail in the previous appeal. The Court emphasised that there was no formal application for an oral hearing, and the submissions were reviewed as a matter of grace. Consequently, the Court concluded that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's application. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original conviction.

The Court ordered that the appellant's application be dismissed and that there was no jurisdiction for the Court to hear it further. This decision underscored the procedural requirements for an appeal and the Court's limited jurisdiction in reviewing such matters without proper application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established