Collins v The Queen

[2007] HCATrans 428

[2007] HCATrans 428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A14 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

ROBERT WAYNE COLLINS

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondents

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON THURSDAY, 9 AUGUST 2007, AT 10.10 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.W. COLLINS appeared in person.

MR M.G. HINTON, QC:   If the Court pleases, I appear with MS M.L. SUTCLIFFE, for the Crown.  (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (SA))

GUMMOW J:   Thank you.  We have read your written submissions, Mr Collins.  Do you wish to supplement them orally?

MR COLLINS:   Just a little bit, sir, not very much, and I apologise if the words do not come out right.

GUMMOW J:   We are used to that.

MR COLLINS:    I believe if I am successful in getting special leave that legal services will fund a senior counsel to do the appeal.  The whole crux of this matter is what is said in the legislation which is the word “benefit” and “detriment”, the two elements of what I was charged with.  The word “detriment” was taken out of the information halfway through the trial and the “benefit”, which is part of the elements of the crime, was right through the crime.  The Crown conceded that I would attain no benefit at all.  That is right through the trial.  The “benefit” came in and out, in and out, but the thing at the end ‑ ‑ ‑

GUMMOW J:   No, it is said against you, Mr Collins, that in fact the way “benefit” was treated in the Court of Criminal Appeal was a reading of the Act which in truth was narrow and thus favoured you.

MR COLLINS:    Yes, well, I do not believe it is so because the Crown says that benefit is a matter of law and I do not think it was ever explained to the jury properly, to the court, and I do not believe anybody this day understands what the word “benefit” is in a criminal matter.  I say that the two elements which were important in this case were taken out of the case.  It is a bit like the old false pretences charge which this Act replaced, had seven elements.  If one of those elements failed, the whole case, the whole charge, failed.  I say in this case, because I was never going to receive a benefit at law, which was never properly explained by his Honour to the jury, who came in after four and a half odd hours, came in at the end, and it was very confusing to everybody.

So I say that there is no benefit, no detriment and the two main elements of the charge were never fulfilled, never proven, so I missed out on the opportunity of a not guilty plea.  I say that I served two and half years incorrectly and I believe that the question of benefit is an important question at law for this Court to answer.  I cannot say anything much more than that, your Honour.  It is all set out in my books, in my submissions.

GUMMOW J:   Thank you.  Yes, Mr Hinton.

MR HINTON:   If the Court pleases, the relevant section appears in the application book at pages 50 and 51 set out in the reasons of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

GUMMOW J:   Yes.

MR HINTON:   Subsection (4) makes it clear that proof that a benefit would as a matter of fact be obtained as a consequence of committing the offence is not required.  It is sufficient that there be proven beyond reasonable doubt that at the time the relevant conduct was engaged in it was engaged in with the intention to benefit.  The Crown did concede that as a matter of fact that Mr Collins in no way would have got the $100,000 benefit ultimately of using the fraudulent document in an effort to satisfy the real estate agents that he had paid a deposit.

The construction given to benefit in that regard was correct insofar as it was limited to an intention and the question of possibility or impossibility was irrelevant in that regard.  Whether or not it was relevant to his state of mind was a question that was raised in effect by the jury questions and dealt with by the learned trial judge as part of the answer to the jury questions.  In my submission, ultimately, the application invites this Court to settle the elements of the offence as charged, it invites this Court to consider whether the evidence led was sufficient to prove the elements, it invites this Court to consider whether the trial judge adequately relayed the facts to the law and it invites this Court to consider the adequacy of the answers given to the questions.

GUMMOW J:   The trial judge directed in terms of benefit as involving a benefit of a financial advantage.

MR HINTON:   He did, if your Honour please.

GUMMOW J:   You say that was perhaps too narrow.

MR HINTON:   Relying upon section 130, an option, and a potentially narrow one, yes.

GUMMOW J:   But it was a direction that was to the advantage of Mr Collins.

MR HINTON:   Yes, it was, if your Honour pleases.

KIRBY J:   That is what Justice Bleby said in the Full Court.

MR HINTON:   Yes.  Ultimately the submission for the Crown though is that the function that Mr Collins ultimately invites this Court to undertake is in effect the function that the Court of Criminal Appeal undertook on each of those four issues and it is not therefore, in my submission, a matter fit for a grant of special leave.  I rely upon the written submissions,  Unless there are any questions from your Honours, those are the submissions of the respondent.

GUMMOW J:   Yes, thank you, Mr Hinton.  Anything in reply, Mr Collins?

MR COLLINS:    No, sir.

GUMMOW J:   Mr Collins, who is the applicant, has argued his case in person and the Court has considered both his oral and detailed written arguments.  Despite those arguments we see no error in the reasons given by Justice Bleby for the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia.  We do not believe that if special leave were granted there would be reasonable prospects of success on an appeal nor do we consider that there has been a miscarriage of justice in the necessary sense of that term.  Accordingly special leave is refused. 

KIRBY J:   May I just say, Mr Hinton, speaking for myself, I appreciate the steps that are taken in South Australia to bring prisoners who are not represented to the Court so that they might be heard as any other person is.  That is not done in every State and I think it is to the credit of the prison authorities in this State that it is done.  Personally, I appreciate it.

MR HINTON:   I will pass those remarks on to the Attorney-General, if your Honour pleases.

GUMMOW J:   Special leave accordingly is refused. 

The Court will now adjourn until Tuesday, 28 August at 10.15 am at Canberra.

AT 10.17 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED