Doggett v The Queen - [2000] HCATrans 490

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B54 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
GRAHAM HENRY DOGGETT
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Bail application

CALLINAN J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON TUESDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2000, AT 12.02 PM

MR A.J. RAFTER: May it please your Honour, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Dearden Lawyers)

MR N.V. WESTON: May it please your Honour, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

HIS HONOUR: Mr Rafter, the applicant’s evidence, some of it is on information and belief, for example, the wife’s affidavit.

MR RAFTER: That is right.

HIS HONOUR: There is no objection to that?

MR WESTON: No, there is not, your Honour.

MR RAFTER: I specifically canvassed that with my learned friend. The reason for that related to the fact the application had to be prepared quickly.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you do not have a problem, there is no objection taken to it. I have read the material.

MR RAFTER: Thank you. Including the further affidavit of Ian Francis Macrae Dearden, filed yesterday, 30 October?

HIS HONOUR: I do not know whether I have read that. I had better check. I have not read it. Just give me a moment to read that.

MR RAFTER: It exhibits the written submissions on special leave application because the initial affidavit incorrectly exhibited the Court of Appeal outlines. The point of exhibiting the outlines ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I think I picked that up. I read the transcript also of the special leave application.

MR RAFTER: The point really being to demonstrate that there is an arguable point in the case.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you have that. You would not have special leave and the arguable point is the Longman direction, is it not, which is the only ground of appeal?

MR RAFTER: That is right. Your Honour, the Crown relies upon Justice Hayne’s decision in Parsons v The Queen (1999) 72 ALJR 1325. That is attached to my learned friend’s written submissions which were filed yesterday.

HIS HONOUR: I think I have read Justice Hayne’s decision, but does anybody have a copy of it? I just do not have it in Court at the moment.

MR WESTON: I can hand up a copy, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: These cases are difficult, Mr Rafter, in one sense. There have been two hearings and I feel very much constrained not to form a view, and certainly not to express a view about prospects. Yet the authorities suggest that, understandably, that is a material matter.

MR RAFTER: Your Honour, the proposition which the Crown relies upon from Parsons, which is accepted by the applicant anyway, is that there should be some exceptional circumstances established but ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: And I said that in Bull and Marotta.

MR RAFTER: Your Honour said 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 Doggett v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Doggett v The Queen [2000] HCATrans 490
Case: [2000] HCATrans 490
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Doggett v The Queen*, Callinan J, sitting in chambers, considered an application for leave to appeal against a conviction. The applicant, Doggett, had been convicted of a criminal offence and sought to challenge that conviction.

The central legal issue before Callinan J was whether there were sufficient grounds to grant leave to appeal against the conviction. This required an assessment of the merits of the proposed grounds of appeal and whether they raised a reasonably arguable point of law or fact that warranted further consideration by the Full Court.

Callinan J applied the principles governing applications for leave to appeal, which require the applicant to demonstrate that there is a real prospect of success on appeal or that there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard. After reviewing the material before him, Callinan J determined that the grounds of appeal did not meet this threshold.

Leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Orders