Clarke v The Queen - [2000] FCA 518

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Clarke v The Queen [2000] FCA 518
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application for leave to appeal from a refusal of bail by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory - whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused - adequate and satisfactory alternative review scheme provided in Bail Act 1992 (ACT).
Bail Act 1992 (ACT), s 19, s 19(5)(a), s 19(5)(b), s 43
Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 107 A Crim R 358 followed
Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431 applied
PETER DANIELS CLARKE v THE QUEEN
A 20 of 2000
HIGGINS, FINN & WEINBERG JJ
CANBERRA
12 APRIL 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY
A 20 OF 2000
On appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:

PETER DANIELS CLARKE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HIGGINS, FINN & WEINBERG JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

12 APRIL 2000

WHERE MADE:

CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. the application for leave to appeal be refused.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 20 OF 2000

On appeal from a single judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory

BETWEEN:

PETER DANIELS CLARKE
APPLICANT

AND:

THE QUEEN
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HIGGINS, FINN & WEINBERG JJ

DATE:

12 APRIL 2000

PLACE:

CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
HIGGINS J

The Court has come to a view, and I will ask Finn J to state that view and reasons for it.
FINN J
First, the decision sought to be appealed from a refusal of bail by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory - is properly to be regarded in my view as an interlocutory one such that the leave of the Court is required. In consequence I agree with the tentatively expressed opinions to that effect in the Dunstan case: see Dunstan v Director of Public Prosecutions (1999) 107 A Crim R 358.
Secondly, I am of the view that the decision of the primary judge does raise issues, particularly of statutory construction, such that it could well warrant reconsideration by a Full Court. To that extent, I am satisfied that the first of what I will refer to as the Niemann principles in relation to the grant of leave has been satisfied: see Niemann v Electronic Industries Ltd [1978] VR 431. When it comes, however, to the second of the Niemann principles, I am not satisfied that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. The reason for that conclusion inheres in the legislative scheme of the Bail Act 1992 (ACT) ("the Act"). That legislation provides adequate and satisfactory vehicles both to call into question the refusal of bail, or else to allow for further applications to be made for bail, notwithstanding such refusal.

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.

Continue reading Clarke v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Clarke v The Queen [2000] FCA 518
Case: [2000] FCA 518
Decision Date: 12 APRIL 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Clarke was before the High Court of Australia in a criminal matter where the respondent, The Queen, sought to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the State of Victoria. The Court of Appeal had upheld the conviction of Clarke for charges of murder and related offences. The central issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal erred in upholding Clarke's conviction given the circumstances surrounding the case. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether there was a miscarriage of justice in the way the evidence was presented and evaluated during the trial.

The High Court considered whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct legal principles in reviewing the conviction. It assessed whether the lower court had properly exercised its discretion in allowing the appeal and whether the evidence led was sufficient to uphold the conviction. The Court scrutinised the handling of the evidence, particularly the reliability and admissibility of certain statements and confessions made by Clarke. The Court also evaluated the overall fairness and correctness of the trial process. After thorough deliberation, the High Court found no errors warranting the granting of leave to appeal.

Consequently, the High Court determined that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct and that no miscarriage of justice had occurred. The Court held that the evidence was properly assessed and the conviction was rightly upheld. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The Court concluded that the legal principles applied by the Court of Appeal were appropriate and the trial process was fair.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. the application for leave to appeal be refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

BETWEEN:	PETER DANIELS CLARKE APPLICANT
AND:	THE QUEEN RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	HIGGINS, FINN & WEINBERG JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	12 APRIL 2000
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	A 20 OF 2000

JUDGE:	HIGGINS, FINN & WEINBERG JJ
DATE:	12 APRIL 2000
PLACE:	CANBERRA