R v Ali
[2003] QCA 117
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.
- Notable Unreported Decision
- Appeal Determined (QCA) - Appeal Determined (HCA)
- R v Ali[2003] QCA 117
- Add to List
R v Ali[2003] QCA 117
R v Ali[2003] QCA 117
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Application for Extension (Conviction) |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX | 18 March 2003 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 18 March 2003 |
JUDGES: | McPherson and Davies JJA and White J |
ORDER: | Application for extension of time within which to appeal against conviction dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - QUEENSLAND - TIME FOR APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME - OTHER MATTERS- where appellant had previously appealed his conviction - where previous appeal dismissed - where new grounds of appeal not such that they could not have been raised at previous appeal - whether appellant can pursue second appeal R v Alexanderson, MacQueen, Barlow and Farr [2001] QCA 400; CA No 155 of 2001, CA No 156 of 2001, CA No 196 of 2001, CA No 197 of 2001, 24 September 2001, followed R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 401; CA No 205 of 2001, 25 September 2001, followed R v Grierson (1938) 60 CLR 431, followed R v Harms [2002] QCA 99; CA No 36 of 2002, 19 March 2002, followed R v Harms [2003] QCA 14; CA No 299 of 2002, 31 January 2003, followed R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 QdR 601, distinguished R v Regazzoli [2001] QCA 482; CA No 223 of 2001, 9 November 2001, followed |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
SOLICITORS: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf |
DAVIES JA: This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against the appellant's conviction for murder on 2 November 2000. However, the appellant appealed earlier against that conviction which was dismissed by this Court on 17 August 2001. This application was filed on 19 November 2002, one year and four months after his appeal against conviction was dismissed and more than two years after he was convicted. It proposes a notice of appeal containing a large number of grounds, almost all of them critical of the way in which the appellant's defence was conducted at his trial. None of them raises any matter which could not have been raised on his appeal.
The fact that the appellant has previously appealed to this Court and that that appeal has been dismissed is fatal to this application.
This Court has held now on many occasions that once an appeal such as this has been unsuccessful the right of appeal is thereby exhausted and a convicted person may not pursue a second appeal on the merits. The following are recent cases in this Court in which that principle has been applied: R v Alexanderson, MacQueen, Barlow and Farr [2001] QCA 400; R v Corrigan [2001] QCA 401; R v Regazzoli [2001] QCA 482; R v Harms [2002] QCA 99; and R v Harms [2003] QCA 14. In those cases this Court has followed the decision of the High Court in R v Grierson (1938) 60 CLR 431.
This is not a case in which, on the limited basis considered by this Court in R v Pettigrew [1997] 1 Qd R 601 it is being asked to reconsider its earlier perfected decision. Rather, it is one in which the appellant seeks to argue a large number of grounds which his experienced counsel on the appeal against conviction heard by this Court on 11 July 2001 chose not to argue.
For reasons which are unexplained, or at least not satisfactorily explained, the applicant comes before this Court on this occasion unrepresented legally. He sought to have represent him a person who is not a lawyer but who apparently prepared a long outline of argument which I have read. The application to have that person represent him on the hearing was refused. It is not sought on this application to reargue the correctness of the decisions of this Court to which I have referred and there is no basis contained in any of the material to which I have referred which would establish any basis for reconsideration of those decisions.
On the contrary, what plainly emerges from the appellant's written outline is that, after two years of consideration, he now regrets the way in which his trial was conducted including his considered decision not to give evidence himself and wishes to have a new trial conducted in some other way.
In my opinion the application should be dismissed.
McPHERSON JA: I agree.
WHITE J: I agree also.
McPHERSON JA: The application is dismissed.