Fraser and Morrison JJA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:
Application for extension of time refused.
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – PROCEDURE – NOTICE OF APPEAL – TIME FOR APPEAL AND EXTENSION THEREOF – where in March 2003 the applicant was convicted after trial of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment – where in November 2003 this Court refused the applicant’s appeal against conviction – where the applicant applies for an extension of time to appeal against conviction – where the applicant contents that a Crime and Misconduct Commission (“CMC”) investigation and an expert report bear upon whether he was properly convicted – where the applicant contends that the CMC investigation demonstrates that certain police officers fabricated evidence against him – where the applicant contends that the expert report places the applicant outside of the area where the victim was killed at the time of the offence – where s 668D of the Criminal Code confers the right of appeal to this Court – where according to Grierson v The King (1938) 60 CLR 431 once an appeal has been decided on merits the right of appeal conferred by s 668D is exhausted – whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal where the applicant contends his conviction was tainted by fabricated evidence
Constitution of Queensland 2001 (Qld), s 58 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), Ch 67, s 668, s 668D, s 672A Criminal Code 1983 (NT), s 407, s 431, s 433 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 5, s 28, s 29, s 45 Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 (Qld), s 8 (repealed)
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading R v Stanley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Stanley [2014] QCA 116
Case
[2014] QCA 116
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appellant, Stanley, was convicted in March 2003 for the crime of murder and subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment. An appeal against this conviction was denied by the court in November 2003. Now, Stanley seeks an extension of time to appeal against his conviction, arguing that a Crime and Misconduct Commission investigation and an expert report impact the validity of his conviction. Stanley claims the CMC investigation shows that certain police officers fabricated evidence against him, and the expert report places him outside the location where the victim was killed at the time of the offence. The court must decide whether it has jurisdiction to hear this appeal, considering that under section 668D of the Criminal Code, the right of appeal to the court is conferred. However, according to Grierson v The King, once an appeal has been decided on its merits, the right of appeal is exhausted.
The central issue before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a further appeal when Stanley contended his conviction was tainted by fabricated evidence. The court considered the statutory provisions under section 668D of the Criminal Code, which grants the right to appeal, and the precedent set in Grierson v The King, which states that once an appeal has been decided on its merits, the right of appeal is exhausted. The court had to balance these legal principles against Stanley's contentions about the CMC investigation and the expert report. Ultimately, the court found that the CMC investigation and expert report did not provide sufficient grounds to extend the time for appeal or to grant a new hearing.
The court determined that once an appeal has been decided on its merits, the right to appeal is exhausted, and any subsequent applications for an extension of time to appeal must be evaluated strictly in accordance with the statutory and judicial precedents. The court held that Stanley's arguments did not meet the threshold for granting an extension of time to appeal. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was refused.
The court's decision was based on its jurisdiction to hear the appeal and the legal principles governing the exhaustion of the right of appeal. The court's final order was to refuse the application for an extension of time to appeal against the conviction.