Bawden v The Queen

[2005] HCATrans 283

[2005] HCATrans 283

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B49 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

BENJAMIN CHARLES BAWDEN

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 27 APRIL 2005, AT 4.39 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant was convicted in the District Court of Queensland on 13 February 2004 of the offence of dangerous operation of a vehicle with circumstances of aggravation, fined $1000 and disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver’s licence for a period of 18 months.  He unsuccessfully appealed against both conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Queensland.  It is in respect of the dismissal of his appeal against conviction that he seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

The grounds upon which he would wish to appeal include that the Court of Appeal should have received fresh evidence which he sought to adduce to it, that the Court of Appeal erred in its assessment of the evidence at the trial, and that it should have held that other irregularities had occurred during the trial such as to make his conviction unsafe.

The evidence against the applicant at the trial, which included evidence of a considerable consumption of alcohol by him before the commission of the offence, was carefully considered by the Court of Appeal which was of the view that the verdict was well open to the jury and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred, either by a reason of insufficiency of evidence, or for any of the other reasons suggested by the applicant which included an unsworn assertion that one of the investigating police officers had mingled with jurors when they undertook a view of the place of the commission of the offence.

The Court of Appeal carefully examined the summing up of the trial judge and concluded that the complaints of the applicant about it were baseless.

The Court of Appeal also dealt with an application by the applicant for leave to call fresh evidence from senior police officers with respect to their procedures to deal with events of the kind in which the applicant was involved.  The Court of Appeal was of the view that this evidence, and some photographs which the applicant wished to tender, neither constituted fresh evidence nor, if received, would in any event have improved the applicant’s prospects of success at the trial.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal.  The application for special leave should be dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish that disposition.

AT 4.41 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED