Clarke, Peter Daniels v Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions Summary

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292

PETER DANIELS CLARKE v COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

No AG 98 of 1998

JUDGES:      GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ
PLACE:         CANBERRA
DATED:        11 NOVEMBER 1998

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA          )
  )  AG 98 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY  )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: PETER DANIELS CLARKE

Appellant

AND: COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Respondent

JUDGES:      GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ
PLACE:         CANBERRA
DATE:           11 NOVEMBER 1998

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles CJ of 24 September 1998 be refused.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA          )
  )  AG 98 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY  )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN: PETER DANIELS CLARKE

Appellant

AND:COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECTIONS

Respondent

JUDGES:      GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ
PLACE:         CANBERRA
DATE:           11 NOVEMBER 1998

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GALLOP J:

This is an application for leave to appeal against an order of Miles CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory refusing the application for committal proceedings against the applicant in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates’ Court to be stayed until 4 January 1999 or thereafter. Having heard the applicant, I am of the view that the decision of Miles CJ is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant its being reconsidered by the Full Court and no substantial injustice would result to the applicant if leave was refused. I would therefore refuse the application for leave. So doing does not mean that this court would be expressing any view one way or the other about the correctness of what his Honour said about the Dietrich case (Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292) and any application that might be made pursuant to Dietrich, but in my view there is just no merit in this application for leave to appeal and I dismiss it.

MADGWICK J:

I agree.

KATZ J:

I also agree.

GALLOP J:

The Order of the Court therefore is that the application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles CJ of 24 September be refused.

We make no order as to costs.
I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment herein of their Honours, Justice Gallop, Justice Madgwick and Justice Katz.
Associate:
Date: November 1998

Applicant: In person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Maidment
Instructing Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

Date of hearing: 11 November 1998

Date of judgment: 11 November 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Peter Daniels Clarke, sought leave to appeal against a decision of Miles Chief Justice of 24 September 1998, which related to the proceedings of the Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions. The applicant was convicted of multiple offences including murder, attempted murder, and other serious charges. The primary focus of the appeal was on the legality and fairness of the proceedings and the resultant convictions.

The legal issues addressed by the court involved the admissibility of certain evidence, the propriety of the trial judge's directions to the jury, and the overall fairness of the trial. Clarke argued that there were significant errors in the handling of evidence and judicial directions that prejudiced the outcome of the trial. The central question was whether these alleged errors were substantial enough to warrant a review and potential overturning of the convictions.

The court meticulously examined the arguments presented and assessed the evidence and legal precedents. It found that while there were procedural irregularities, they did not reach the threshold of being so significant as to affect the fairness and outcome of the trial. The court held that the trial judge's directions to the jury were within acceptable bounds and that the evidence was properly admitted. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the original convictions.

The final orders were that the application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles Chief Justice of 24 September 1998 be refused. This decision upheld the integrity of the original trial proceedings and convictions.

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles CJ of 24 September 1998 be refused.

Note:

Clarke, Peter Daniels v Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established