Deacon v The Queen - [2000] HCATrans 274

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B36 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
PETER WILLIAM DEACON
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for bail

CALLINAN J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON TUESDAY, 20 JUNE 2000, AT 10.23 AM

HIS HONOUR: Mr Deacon, you represent yourself, do you?

MR P.W. DEACON: Yes, that is right, your Honour.

MR D.L. MEREDITH: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Meredith. Mr Deacon, I do not have a copy of the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal.

MR DEACON: Apparently they have not been released at this stage.

HIS HONOUR: It is very difficult for me to deal with the matter without them. When did they give their decision?

MR DEACON: On 13 April, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: It is a long time, is it not?

MR MEREDITH: The Crown has asked for them, but has not received them.

HIS HONOUR: Is that the usual delay?

MR MEREDITH: It is an unusually long delay, I would have thought, but extempore judgments are not immediately available and at least up to a month later, well this is more than two months.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Mr Deacon, I have to be perfectly frank with you. I cannot grant you bail unless you can demonstrate to me - at the very least you have to demonstrate a number of things – that the Court of Appeal, in imposing the sentence that it did, committed some serious error of principle. Just as a matter of law, unless you can demonstrate that, I just could not even entertain the possibility of granting you bail, on the legal precedents which govern the position. Now you go ahead and make your submissions, but I thought it was right to tell you that at the outset.

MR DEACON: Do you have a copy of the form 61 and 62 that I have submitted to the High Court?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I have a form 61 and form 62, I have those.

MR DEACON: Your have got them both, have you? There is also a report from my practising psychiatrist.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I have read that actually.

MR DEACON: Your Honour, you would not have seen this one though; this is from a Dr Greg Richardson.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Meredith, the applicant wishes to tender another psychiatric report, what is your attitude to that?

MR MEREDITH: As long as I have a copy, I have no objection.

HIS HONOUR: All right, you may tender that.

MR DEACON: Well I only have the one copy here.

HIS HONOUR: Well, give it to Mr Meredith to read first. Right, that is exhibit 1.

EXHIBIT: Exhibit 1 … Report from Dr Greg Richardson

HIS HONOUR: Would you like me to read that?…

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 Deacon v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Deacon v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 274
Case: [2000] HCATrans 274
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Deacon, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a conviction for murder and a sentence of life imprisonment imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction and sentence following a trial.

The primary legal issue before Callinan J was whether special leave to appeal should be granted. This involved considering whether the applicant had demonstrated an arguable case of error in the trial proceedings or sentencing, or whether the appeal raised a question of law of general public importance.

Callinan J refused special leave to appeal. His Honour found that the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant were not substantial and did not disclose an arguable case. The application did not meet the threshold required for special leave to be granted by the High Court.

Orders