MORRISON JA: The Court has reached a concluded view about the determination of this application and I am going to ask Justice Brown to read the reasons of the Court.

BROWN J: Mr Manning seeks an extension of time pursuant to s 671 of the Criminal Code to appeal against conviction and sentence, and special leave to re-open an appeal under s 44 of the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 and also pursuant to s 666E of the Criminal Code. The application is made well outside the time limit that is prescribed.

Mr Manning was originally tried and convicted in the District Court in 2013. He successfully appealed in 2014 and was re-tried. Mr Manning was again convicted in 2016. He again successfully appealed that conviction in 2017. In 2018 he was re‑tried and convicted. He appealed both the conviction and the sentence on the basis that each verdict was unreasonable or could not be supported having regard to the whole of the evidence and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. That appeal was dismissed and leave to appeal against the sentence was refused on 7 February 2020.[1]

[1][2020] QCA 14 per Brown J (Morrison and McMurdo JJA agreeing).

In his appeal from the 2018 conviction and sentence, he was represented by Mr Copley QC. The grounds of appeal ultimately pursued at the hearing were that the applicant’s conviction on counts 4 to 9, 12, 18 and 20 were unreasonable. While the ground for appeal against sentence was that the sentence was manifestly excessive, it was conceded at the hearing that it would only be successful if the grounds of appeal against conviction were successful in part or in whole. The appeal was the subject of a full hearing before this Court.

Mr Manning sought leave for an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court. Special leave to the High Court was refused on 16 March 2022 on the basis that the decision did not raise any question with sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal and that it would “be futile to grant an extension of time”.[2]

[2][2022] HCASL 42 per Keane J and Edelman J.

In the grounds supporting his current application, Mr Manning states that:

“The appellant had appealed against all of the convictions on the ground that the verdicts of guilty are unreasonable. As will become plain from the outline of this application, the complaint is agitated primarily in relation to the verdicts return on sodomy counts (counts 8, 12, 18 and 20) and in relation to whether it was open to the jury to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the complainant was under the age of 12 when counts 4 - 9…

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.

Continue reading The King v Manning

Details

AGLC: The King v Manning [2023] QCA 8
Case: [2023] QCA 8
Decision Date: 9 FEBRUARY 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The King v Manning involved the applicant, Gregory Thomas Manning, seeking an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence. Manning had a history of appeals, with his most recent appeal being dismissed in 2020. In the current application, Manning sought an extension of time to appeal against his conviction and sentence, as well as special leave to reopen the appeal. The primary legal issues that the Court had to address were whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the further appeal, and if the application for an extension of time was an abuse of process. The Court held that Manning had exhausted his right to appeal against his conviction, as the appeal on the merits had already been determined in 2020. The Court further found that the application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence was an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate a case that had been conclusively determined on its merits.

The Court relied on various legal principles and precedents in reaching its decision. The Court noted that the right to appeal against conviction and sentence is statutory and that the Court has no further authority to set aside a conviction upon indictment than the statute confers. The Court also referred to previous cases that established that once an appeal has been determined on its merits, the Court has no jurisdiction to hear a further appeal. The Court further held that the exceptions to this principle are very limited and do not apply in the present case. The Court also found that the application for an extension of time for leave to appeal against sentence was an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate a case that had already been conclusively determined on its merits. The Court held that there was no good reason for the delay in seeking leave to appeal against sentence and that Manning had no prospects of succeeding on a renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The Court ultimately refused Manning's application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence. The Court held that the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction was futile, as the new appeal would be incompetent. The Court also held that the application for an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against sentence was an abuse of process, as it was an attempt to relitigate a case that had already been conclusively determined on its merits. The Court's orders were that the application for an extension of time to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.

Orders