R v Morrison

[2001] QCA 170

[2001] QCA 170

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 150 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

NEIL MORRISON  Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/05/2001

ORDER

McPHERSON JA:  This is an appeal against convictions for murder at a trial that took place in November 1999.  The appeal has been before the Court on more than one occasion.

The appellant has, on this occasion, produced certain affidavits of individuals whose evidence the appellant wishes to rely on at the appeal.

The appellant has also asked for an adjournment of the appeal to enable an MRI scan to be undertaken and arrangements have been made, it seems, to enable the scan to take place somewhere in about the middle of this month.

After considering the matter at some length and hearing submissions on the question, I have come to the conclusion that such an MRI scan might, perhaps, show the existence of a reason for the condition of the appellant as it is now; but it would not show the extent of the alleged disability as it was at the time of the events in February 1999 as a result of which the appellant was charged with and convicted of murder.

The state of the disability then depended on the observation of lay witnesses who, or at least some of whom, gave evidence at the trial about the condition of the appellant's right arm at or shortly before the killings.

In my view, the proposed MRI scan would not, on the material we have concerning it at present, suggest anything more than that the appellant is attempting now to find evidence which, from what I have seen of it, was not considered at the time of the trial, and is almost certainly not, relevant to the issue which he wishes to raise.

I would therefore refuse the adjournment on the ground on which it has been sought.

THOMAS JA:  I agree.  The application for adjournment, which is the fourth time such an application has been made to this Court, seems to me to be one brought in the hope that something might turn up.  I think the matter can be dealt with adequately by reference to the observations of the lay witnesses upon whose evidence counsel for the applicant desires to rely.

CHESTERMAN J:  I agree.  The adjournment should be refused for the reasons given.

McPHERSON JA:  The result is the adjournment is refused. 

-----