The Queen v Ian Hamilton McConnell Summary

[2000] QCA 200

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
MUIR J

CA No 14 of 2000

THE QUEEN

IAN HAMILTON McCONNELL

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/05/2000

ORDER

PINCUS JA: This is an application which has been already adjourned once and a further adjournment is sought. In the circumstances that both sides appear to want an adjournment, the Court is willing to adjourn the matter, but it must be said that it is hoped that no further adjournment will be necessary and that co-operation between the parties will ensure that it comes on for a final hearing next time.

When I say a final hearing, it is only an application for an extension of time, and the only issue, as Mr Justice Davies has pointed out with respect to the merits, is whether there is an arguable case.

The order will be that the application is adjourned to a date to be fixed.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of The Queen versus Ian Hamilton McConnell, the matter was brought before the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The appeal was being considered by Pincus J, Davies JA and Muir JA. This case involved an application for an extension of time, which had already been adjourned once, and the applicant sought a further adjournment. The primary issue for the court was whether to grant the application for an adjournment and ensure the matter would come on for a final hearing.

The legal issue that the court had to address was whether to grant the application for an adjournment, considering the circumstances where both parties appeared to want an adjournment. The court had to balance the need for an adjournment with the hope that it would be the last one, and that cooperation between the parties would lead to the matter being heard definitively. The court also had to consider the merits of the case, as suggested by Mr Justice Davies, to determine whether there was an arguable case for the extension of time.

The Court of Appeal decided to adjourn the matter, acknowledging the desire of both parties for an adjournment. The court emphasised that it hoped there would be no further need for adjournments and that the cooperation between the parties would lead to a final hearing. Pincus JA noted that the only issue was whether there was an arguable case, as pointed out by Mr Justice Davies. The court was willing to adjourn the matter but stressed the importance of moving towards a final hearing. The court ordered the application to be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

The Queen v Ian Hamilton McConnell

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established