//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2001] QCA 506
Court of Appeal (Qld)
2001-11-04
Murdo P, Pherson JA, Chesterman J
Original judgment source is linked above.
Source: Queensland Judgments (Supreme Court Library Queensland) (www.queenslandjudgments.com.au). Converted to plain text by ZoeLaw. Not the official version.
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
CHESTERMAN J
CA No 249 of 2001
THE QUEEN
v.
RAYMOND BARRY McGRADY
BRISBANE
DATE 14/11/2001
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: Mr McGrady has sent to the Registrar a handwritten document which purports to be a Notice of Appeal against conviction, although it does not seem to be in the proper form.
He was convicted in the District Court at Brisbane on the 5 February 2001 of the offence of grievous bodily harm and was sentenced on 16 February 2001 to six years' imprisonment.
He appealed against his conviction and sentence under Section 668D Criminal Code. That matter came on for hearing before this Court, in part differently constituted, on the 27 July 2001.
A record of the transcript of that hearing and the applicant's submissions before this Court suggest that he originally had legal representation but was given advice that his lawyers would only act for him on his application for leave to appeal against sentence and not on his appeal against conviction.
Mr McGrady was not happy with that advice and dismissed that legal representation. He sought an adjournment on the 27 July 2001 in order to get new legal representation. He claimed to have a solicitor able to represent him and that he was in a position to pay the solicitor's costs, although he gave scant details.
After hearing from Mr McGrady as to his proposed grounds of appeal against conviction, the Court refused the adjournment of the appeal because Mr McGrady had terminated his legal representation by his own choice and could give this Court no clear assurance he would be represented within the foreseeable future in any definite way.
His appeal was adjourned until later in the morning to enable him to prepare his argument. Subsequently the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was heard by the Court. Mr McGrady represented himself and argued that the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be upheld.
He appeared to articulate his reasons for this but his contentions were rejected by the Court of Appeal which dismissed the appeal against conviction and the application for leave to appeal against sentence. See 2001 QCA 302, CA Nos 44 and 45 of 2001, 27 July 2001.
The orders to that effect were subsequently perfected.
Mr McGrady now wishes to have a second appeal to this Court arguing that he should have been granted an adjournment and that he had insufficient time to prepare his case. He seeks to reargue his case raising matters which he claims were errors on the part of the trial Judge.
Mr McGrady has exhausted his right of appeal to this Court under Section 668D Criminal Code and may not pursue a second appeal to this Court. The orders dismissing the appeal and refusing the application have been perfected. See Grierson v. The King (1938) 60 CLR 431, Postiglione v. The Queen (1996-1997) 189 CLR 295 at 300, 315, 326. R v. Corrigan, 2001 QCA 401, CA No 205 of 2001, 24 September 2001.
This is not an instance to which the principles discussed in Pettigrew [1997] 1 QdR 601 or R v. Allen [1994] 1 QdR 526 have application.
The Court has performed its function hearing the appeal and the application for leave. The orders have been perfected. This Court can do nothing more. Mr McGrady's only remedies are to apply to the High Court for special leave or to apply to the Governor for a pardon under Section 67(2)(A) of the Criminal Code.
...
THE PRESIDENT: I would dismiss the document that purports to be an appeal.
R
McGrady [2001] QCA 506
(1938) 60 CLR 431