R v Williams

[2000] QCA 346

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA
MOYNIHAN J

CA No 2 of 2000

THE QUEEN

BRIAN ANDREW WILLIAMS Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 22/08/2000

ORDER

PINCUS JA: In this matter, which is an appeal against a murder conviction, the trial was conducted last year and
Mrs Clare has informed us that in this Court the matter has been previously adjourned. Mr Rafter, who was engaged in the matter, has withdrawn, there being a difference between himself and the applicant as to the grounds which should be argued.

Mr Williams has told us today that he proposes to try to engage other counsel. The situation is that he does not feel able to argue the matter himself. The Court is of the opinion that the matter has to be adjourned and that course is not opposed by Mrs Clare.

It is desirable, however, that the matter not be further adjourned. It is now getting rather old and stale. The view of this Court, therefore, is that the next time the matter is listed it should come on and be heard. It is necessary for Mr Williams to note that he will not necessarily obtain any further adjournment of the matter, even if for some reason he does not feel that he is adequately represented or that he is adequately prepared.

The Court is of the opinion that if there is to be any further material filed, or any further grounds relied on, on the part of Mr Williams, that material and those grounds should be notified in writing to the Crown at least 21 days before the matter is next down for hearing.

That is the Court holds the view, and directs, that the appellant, at least 21 days before the matter is next set down for hearing, serve upon the Prosecutor's office a document setting out any additional grounds which are to be relied on in addition to those set out in the notice of appeal.

And secondly, at least 21 days in advance of the next hearing date, that Mr Williams also causes to be served any further affidavit material which is to be relied on.

...

PINCUS JA: With that direction, that the material on the appellant's side must be filed and served at least 21 days before the next hearing date, the matter is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

---‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in R v Williams was heard by Pincus JA, McPherson JA and Moyniham JA of the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Brian Andrew Williams, was appealing a murder conviction that resulted from a trial held in the previous year. The matter had already been adjourned in the Court of Appeal and Mr Rafter, who had previously been engaged in the matter, had withdrawn due to a difference of opinion with the appellant regarding the grounds to be argued. Williams indicated that he intended to engage other counsel but was currently unable to argue the matter himself. The Crown did not oppose the adjournment but emphasised the need to avoid further delays, as the case had become stale. The Court ruled that the matter should be heard the next time it was listed and directed that Williams must serve any additional grounds or affidavit material on the Crown at least 21 days before the next hearing date.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal involved the proper procedure for the appellant to follow in presenting his case, particularly regarding the timing and content of any additional grounds or material he intended to rely on. The Court emphasised the importance of avoiding further adjournments and ensuring that all necessary material was provided to the Crown well in advance of the next hearing. The Court also made it clear that further adjournments would not necessarily be granted even if Williams felt inadequately represented or unprepared.

The Court of Appeal determined that the matter should be heard the next time it was listed, and provided clear directions for the appellant to serve any additional grounds or affidavit material on the Crown at least 21 days before the next hearing date. The Court stressed the need for the case to proceed without further delays and made it clear that any additional material must be provided in a timely manner to avoid further adjournments. The Court's decision aimed to ensure that the case was heard in a timely and efficient manner, while also providing the appellant with an opportunity to properly present his case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established