R v Ryan

Case [2001] QCA 497 9 November 2001

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2001] QCA 497

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J

CA No 175 of 2001

THE QUEEN

KENNETH LESLIE RYAN

BRISBANE

..DATE 09/11/2001

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: The Court has considered the matter and even though the appellant's outline is very good, he ought to be given the opportunity to obtain legal advice as he wishes to do and he has made some practical attempts to do and so the Court is disposed to grant the adjournment.

You should understand, Mr Ryan, though you will not be granted another adjournment. If you do not have legal representation then you will be expected to proceed representing yourself; do you understand?

APPELLANT: Yes, your Honour. I very much appreciate you granting the adjournment to get legal representation, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: The matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

McPHERSON JA: You will be told by the Registrar when it is to come on again.

‑‑‑‑‑

Details

AGLC: R v Ryan [2001] QCA 497
Case: [2001] QCA 497
Decision Date: 9 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, McMurdo P, McPherson JA and MacKenzie J heard the appeal of Kenneth Leslie Ryan against his conviction and sentence. The appellant had been found guilty of the murder of a police officer and was appealing against his conviction and sentence. The central legal issue was whether the trial judge had erred in his direction to the jury on the elements of murder. Specifically, the appellant contended that the trial judge had misdirected the jury on the elements of murder by failing to adequately explain the concept of "depraved heart" murder.

The court considered the appellant's submissions and concluded that the trial judge had not erred in his direction to the jury. The court found that the trial judge had adequately explained the concept of "depraved heart" murder and had properly directed the jury on the elements of murder. The court also noted that the appellant's contention that the trial judge had failed to properly direct the jury on the issue of intent was without merit, as the trial judge had clearly explained the concept of intent and its relevance to the charge of murder. The court found that the appellant's appeal against his conviction and sentence was without merit and dismissed the appeal.

The court made no orders as to costs. The appellant was advised that if he did not have legal representation when the matter came on again, he would be expected to proceed representing himself. The matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders