R v Morrison

[2001] QCA 13

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ McPHERSON JA MACKENZIE J

CA No 150 of 2000

THE QUEEN

NEIL MORRISON	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 05/02/2001
05022001 T2/BP17 M/T COA12/2001

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The way the appellant's present contention has been framed is that the relevant point was drawn to the attention of defence counsel at the time of the trial but not pursued.

Because the point is said to have been in the mind of the prisoner at the time of the trial, it is not presented as what would ordinarily be termed a fresh evidence case. The appellant will apparently be driven, therefore, to seek to establish that a miscarriage of justice occurred based on the unacceptability of the course taken by his legal representatives. He accordingly will carry a substantial burden.

This is what we would consider a relatively old appeal. A notice of appeal was filed on 8 June last year. This is the third time the appeal has been listed for hearing. We are constrained in the interests of justice to adjourn the hearing today. We note however that this will be the third time the hearing will have been adjourned at the request of the appellant.

To avoid any suggestion that the Court is being humbugged, the appellant should now be put upon strict time lines and with a clear understanding that the matter is now proceeding without further diversion to finality.

The issue of the appellant's physical capacity to carry out the alleged murders because of a suggested weakness in his right

05022001 T2/BP17 M/T COA12/2001

arm and hand is to be dealt with in an evidentiary sense by
affidavits. Any such affidavit material on behalf of the
appellant is to be filed and served on the Crown by 5 March
2001. Any affidavit material in response by the Crown is to be
filed and served on the appellant by 5 April 2001.

The matter is not to be relisted for hearing at the request of the appellant or the Crown unless the Registrar has been assured by the appellant's representatives that the affidavit material filed comprises the entirety of the further evidence on which the appellant would seek to rely.

The appeal is adjourned until a date to be fixed. In the event
of non-compliance by the appellant with the timetable just
referred to, the Registrar may relist the matter for the

purpose of its being disposed of.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Morrison is an appeal against conviction by Neil Morrison, who was found guilty of murder. The Queensland Court of Appeal, comprising de Jersey CJ, McPherson JA, and MacKenzie J, heard the appeal. The appellant argued that a miscarriage of justice occurred due to the inadequacy of his legal representation during the trial. Specifically, it was contended that his defence counsel failed to adequately address his physical capacity to commit the murders, given a weakness in his right arm and hand.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal included whether the appellant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel constituted a miscarriage of justice and whether the court should permit the introduction of additional evidence regarding the appellant's physical condition. The Court had to weigh the merits of the appellant's argument against the principle of finality in legal proceedings and the burden of proof required to establish a miscarriage of justice.

The Court of Appeal determined that the appellant's contention was not framed as a fresh evidence case, but rather as a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel that led to a miscarriage of justice. The Court noted the substantial burden on the appellant to prove such a claim. Given the multiple adjournments at the appellant's request, the Court imposed strict timelines for the submission of affidavits concerning the appellant's physical condition and warned of potential relisting for final disposal if the appellant failed to comply with the set deadlines. The appeal was adjourned pending compliance with the specified timelines.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established