R v Mcconnell

[2000] QCA 101

[R v McCONNELL]
  [2000] QCA 101

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA
MOYNIHAN J

CA No 14 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

IAN HAMILTON McCONNELL  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/03/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA:  As I indicated during the course of argument for myself I find it impossible to say on what has been said so far and what has been put before the Court indirectly by way of evidence that there is an arguable basis for an appeal. 

The main complaint which has been made has been about the incompetence of counsel below.  A number of specific examples were given of a failure to cross-examine on specific issues.  It is uncertain, at least to me, whether in fact the failure to cross-examine on these issues was on instructions, was if not on instructions a sound tactical decision or whether as submitted by Mr Murray an error and if an error whether it demonstrated incompetence.

It is impossible to cite any of those things in my view without having proper evidence before this Court and unless this Court can be satisfied as to that matter it really ought not, in my view, to be granting an extension of time. 
I would therefore adjourn this application and I would order that the applicant file all affidavits which he proposes to file to support his application for an extension of time within 14 days; that the respondent file any affidavits in reply within a further seven days; that if any party wishes to cross-examine any of the deponents to affidavits they should give notice to the other party and to the Registry at least 28 days before the hearing date of the adjourned hearing of this application.

Now, you understand, Mr Murray, from what I've proposed that I would have in mind that you would have filed all affidavits - that is, any evidence which you intend to adduce to support it, waiving any necessary privilege for that purpose.  All right. 

They are the orders I would propose.

McPHERSON JA:  I agree.

MOYNIHAN J:  Yes, I agree.

-----