Richard Laing v The Queen

[2013] HCASL 19

RICHARD LAING

v

THE QUEEN

[2013] HCASL 19
B70/2012

1. On 19 November 2007, the applicant was convicted after a trial by jury in the District Court of Queensland of one count of burglary with circumstances of aggravation and one count of unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent.  On 11 December 2007, he was sentenced to six and a half years' imprisonment in respect of each offence.

2. On 10 October 2008, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed the applicant's appeal against his conviction and refused him leave to appeal against his sentence.  Keane JA, with whom Fraser JA and Jones J agreed, held that it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the applicant's guilt.  Keane JA rejected a contention that evidence of tools found in the applicant's car was wrongly admitted.  Even though there was no DNA on the tools, the evidence that he was in possession of a hammer and a knife was admissible to prove that the applicant had the means to enter the victim's house and to attack him in the manner alleged.  His Honour also held that there was no substance in the applicant's complaint that the victim's hospital file should not have been admitted and the applicant suffered no prejudice.  The directions given by the trial judge to the jury were appropriate to ensure the applicant received a fair trial. To the extent that the Crown case relied on circumstantial evidence, the trial judge's directions on inferences to be drawn from such evidence were sufficient.  There was no need for the trial judge to warn the jury that it would be "dangerous" to convict the applicant on the basis of the victim's identification evidence, given the history of previous contact between the applicant and the victim.  As to the sentence imposed, Keane JA held that it was within the appropriate range and was moderate given the circumstances of the offence.

3. The applicant requires an extension of time in which to file his application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  The application raises grounds not advanced below and makes various scandalous allegations against the trial judge and the Crown Prosecutor.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.  The extension should not be granted.

4. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. 

S.M. Kiefel
13 March 2013 S.J. Gageler