The Queen v Mrsic
[1998] QCA 470
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- The Queen v Mrsic[1998] QCA 470
- Add to List
The Queen v Mrsic[1998] QCA 470
The Queen v Mrsic[1998] QCA 470
COURT OF APPEAL |
|
McMURDO P |
|
PINCUS JA |
|
CHESTERMAN J |
|
CA No 354 of 1998 |
|
THE QUEEN |
|
v. |
|
IVAN MRSIC | Applicant |
BRISBANE |
|
DATE 02/12/98 |
|
JUDGMENT |
|
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant applies for an extension of time within which to appeal. He was convicted of manslaughter after a jury trial in Townsville on 16 June 1997.
One Braiding gave evidence for the Crown against the applicant at his trial. The applicant's original appeal against conviction was dismissed on 1 September 1997. The applicant's grounds for extension are:
- 1.There is fresh evidence that the witness Braiding, in the course of his evidence knowingly gave a false account of the order and circumstances of the shots fired at the relevant time at the trial of this matter in the Supreme Court at Townsville between 2 June '97 and 18 June 1997. This evidence is directly relevant as to whether I was acting in self defence.
- 2.The witness Braiding is now an inmate in the Townsville Correctional Centre and has advised me that he is prepared to provide a statement to the Court setting out the correct account of the order and the circumstances of the shots fired at the relevant time.
- 3.At the time the initial appeal was lodged by myself, Braiding was in hiding and could not be located by police. Braiding was subsequently found by police and is now serving time in custody at the Townsville Correctional Centre.
There is not ordinarily any power to allow for another appeal against conviction to this Court: see R v. Smith [1968] QWN 50 and R v. Smith No 2 [1969] QWN 10.
In any case, the applicant has not provided to the Court any new evidence in affidavit form or otherwise. There is only his hearsay assertion that such evidence may become available. The applicant, who bears the onus, has failed to establish any reason to justify his success in this application.
In these circumstances the application must be refused.
PINCUS JA: Apart from any other difficulty this applicant has the problem that, as he concedes, the fresh evidence of which he speaks is merely a possibility. He doesn't say that he's likely to be able to obtain it but, simply, that he might. In these circumstances, the application, in my view must, as the President says, be dismissed.
CHESTERMAN J: I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by the President and Mr Justice Pincus.
THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application is refused.