Brian James Steer v The Queen

BRIAN JAMES STEER
v
THE QUEEN
[2015] HCASL 149
S35/2015

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal in relation to conviction only against the order of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal (Hoeben CJ at CL, Hidden and Davies JJ) dismissing an application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence for attempting to escape from lawful custody, contrary to s 310D(a) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The application for special leave is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order extending the time in which to file the application.
The decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal applied established principles to the facts and circumstances. The applicant advances no arguable ground of appeal against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. The argument which the applicant now seeks to advance concerning the correct application of the proximity test in the law of inchoate offences was not raised below and thus this case is not an appropriate vehicle for consideration of this issue. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success. It is therefore not in the interests of justice generally or in this case that special leave be granted.
The extension of time should be granted, but special leave should be refused.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A. Nettle
3 September 2015 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brian James Steer v The Queen concerns an application for special leave to appeal against a conviction for attempting to escape from lawful custody. The applicant, Brian James Steer, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, which dismissed an application for leave to appeal against both the conviction and sentence. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia. The applicant's primary objective was to challenge the conviction and sentence but also sought an extension of time for filing the application for special leave, as it was out of time.

The legal issues before the High Court involved whether the application for special leave could be granted despite being filed out of time and if there was an arguable ground of appeal against the Court of Criminal Appeal’s decision. The Court needed to determine if the applicant's argument concerning the correct application of the proximity test in the law of inchoate offences, which was not raised in the lower courts, could be considered. Additionally, the Court had to assess whether an appeal to the High Court would have a prospect of success and if granting special leave would be in the interests of justice.

The High Court found that the applicant's application for special leave was indeed out of time, but an extension of time should be granted. However, the Court concluded that the applicant did not present an arguable ground of appeal against the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision, as the argument concerning the proximity test was not raised below. The Court also determined that the appeal did not have a prospect of success and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant special leave. Therefore, the application for special leave was dismissed.

Consequently, the High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal. The Court's reasoning was grounded in the principles that the application was out of time, the argument concerning the proximity test was not raised in the lower courts, and the appeal had no prospect of success. The Court emphasised that granting special leave would not serve the interests of justice.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established