Richard Laing v The Queen - [2013] HCASL 19

RICHARD LAING
v
THE QUEEN
[2013] HCASL 19
B70/2012

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.
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.
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.
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

Grounds of appeal

[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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Richard Laing v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Richard Laing v The Queen, the applicant, Richard Laing, sought special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for burglary with aggravating circumstances and unlawfully doing grievous bodily harm with intent, as determined by the District Court of Queensland. The Supreme Court of Queensland's Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal and refused him leave to appeal his sentence. The applicant now requests an extension of time to file his application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the evidence of tools found in Laing's car, the victim's hospital file, and the trial judge's jury directions were appropriately admitted and whether the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range. The court also considered whether the applicant's appeal enjoyed prospects of success and whether the scandalous allegations made against the trial judge and the Crown Prosecutor warranted further consideration.

The High Court found that the evidence of tools, even without DNA, was admissible to show Laing had the means to commit the crimes. The victim's hospital file was also appropriately admitted, and the trial judge's directions to the jury were sufficient to ensure a fair trial. The court further held that the sentence imposed was within the appropriate range and was moderate given the circumstances of the offence. The court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal would enjoy no prospects of success due to the lack of new grounds and the scandalous allegations against the trial judge and the Crown Prosecutor. Therefore, the application for an extension of time was dismissed, and the appeal was refused.

The High Court's final order was to dismiss the application for special leave to appeal, with the Registrar instructed to draw up, sign, and seal the order.

Orders