Caratti v the Queen P86/2000 - [2000] HCATrans 695

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth No P86 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
JOHN MICHAEL CARATTI
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for bail

McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 22 NOVEMBER 2000, AT 4.47 PM

MR P.V. BATROS: May it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the applicant. (instructed by Davies & Co. of Perth)

MR G.C. LALOR: I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Batros.

MR BATROS: Your Honour, confident that your Honour would have read all the papers and thus recognising the lateness of the hour, even as listed, I ask myself this question, in order to try and make my submissions pertinent and concise, namely, what additional points to the material that is before the Court would I wish to put before you? If I could briefly and as quickly as is reasonable, go to those additional submissions, over and beyond the written submissions that your Honour already has, and they would be these: firstly that, on the papers, the applicant is an outstanding candidate for a grant of bail; no challenge is made to his detailed affidavit nor the facts in it sworn 19 October 2000 nor to the contents of the affidavits of Jonathan Davies sworn 25 October and 14 November 2000. The relevant point there being that Caratti deposes as to what happened in the trial, particularly regarding this Navratil matter, and this Navratil matter is a matter of enormous importance; it is important as to the basic justice of the admission of the evidence ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: Yes, but it comes down in the end, does it not, first of all, as to whether it was admissible; and the second matter was that, even if it was not admissible and the view that Justice Murray took at first instance was correct, there has been any miscarriage of justice. The Court of Criminal Appeal held that there was not. Now, how are you going to get special leave in respect of that?

MR BATROS: Well, because when one analyses that judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal, the errors that are patent on it are themselves most disturbing and many of the facts which the Court of Criminal Appeal took into account in saying that there was no miscarriage of justice anyway, were factors, which were after the conspiracy found by the jury had ended, namely on the death of Sergio Caratti, 23 May 1992, and which the Court of Criminal Appeal expressly said - and I can give you the reference in half a moment - none of the evidence of any overt act after the conspiracy ended was admissible in the case.

In coming to its conclusion, that is, the Court of Criminal Appeal’s conclusion, that there was nonetheless this allegedly…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Caratti v the Queen P86/2000 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2000] HCATrans 695
Decision Date: 22 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr Caratti against the decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The dispute arose from Mr Caratti's conviction for a number of offences, including conspiracy to import heroin and conspiracy to possess heroin for the purpose of supply. The conviction followed a trial in the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue before McHugh J, sitting in chambers, was whether there was a sufficient question of law to be argued on appeal to warrant the grant of special leave. Specifically, the applicant sought to challenge the admissibility of certain evidence, arguing that it had been obtained in contravention of his rights. The applicant also contended that there had been a miscarriage of justice in the proceedings below.

McHugh J considered the grounds of appeal advanced by Mr Caratti. His Honour noted that the applicant's arguments regarding the admissibility of evidence were largely based on a misapprehension of the relevant legal principles governing the admission of evidence obtained in contravention of rights. His Honour found that the trial judge had correctly applied the law in admitting the evidence. Furthermore, McHugh J concluded that there was no substantial error in the conduct of the trial that would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

Special leave to appeal was refused.

Orders