Doggett v the Queen B54/2000 - [2000] HCATrans 667

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 THURSDAY, 2 NOVEMBER 2000, AT 4.29 PM

(Continued from 1/11/00)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Weston, you are going to try to assist me.

MR WESTON: Yes, thank you, your Honour. If your Honour pleases, I have taken instructions from the Director about the Crown’s attitude.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR WESTON: After discussion it seems that it is really difficult to advance the matter much beyond what I was submitting before you yesterday, that is, the Crown’s position is that a grant of bail, at this stage, may be seen as treating the verdict of guilty by the jury as being provisional. That submission is made, of course, fully cognisant of your Honour’s own judgment in Marotta v The Queen that to grant bail, unless exceptional circumstances are fully justified, may be seen as investing the mere grant of special leave with greater significance than it really warrants.

Thirdly, the Crown position is simply this, that the great balance of authority is that bail should not be granted to persons in the applicant’s position unless truly exceptional circumstances are shown. That being so, the Crown really is duty bound to oppose bail unless those exceptional circumstances are justified. Yes. I do not think I can assist your Honour any further on that point as to the rationale, as it were, for the Crown’s opposition to the grant of appeal bail.

HIS HONOUR: All right, thank you. Mr Weston, when, but for the reasons that we discussed yesterday, would the applicant be eligible for consideration for work release?

MR WESTON: From memory his parole date was 1 September 2001. He is eligible for release on home detention, if I remember correctly, on 1 May 2001.

HIS HONOUR: That is home detention, but perhaps, Mr Rafter, you may have some ‑ ‑ ‑

MR RAFTER: The date of eligibility of release to work is 30 November. Of course, the material before your Honour is to the effect that he has not applied for that, does not intend to apply for it and there are significant reasons for that, of course.

HIS HONOUR: Well, the reason, as I understood it, was the risk of brutality by other prisoners.

MR RAFTER: The risk of brutality. That is right. The prison service cannot give the same level of protection to an offender serving a sentence for offences of this type in the release to work program.

HIS HONOUR: All right. I do not think you dispute that, Mr Weston, do you?

MR WESTON: No, we cannot, no.

MR RAFTER: And there was the further obstacle that my learned friend accepted by reason of his non‑admission of the offences.

HIS HONOUR: The Suresh point.

MR RAFTER: Yes,…

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 B54/2000

Details

AGLC: Doggett v the Queen B54/2000 [2000] HCATrans 667
Case: [2000] HCATrans 667
Decision Date: 2 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Doggett, against the decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicant sought to challenge his conviction for murder and the subsequent sentence imposed by that court.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Supreme Court of Queensland had erred in its application of the law relating to the admissibility of certain evidence during the applicant's trial. Specifically, the applicant contended that evidence obtained in circumstances that may have infringed his rights should have been excluded.

Callinan J, sitting in chambers, considered the arguments presented by the applicant. His Honour's reasoning focused on the established principles governing the admission of evidence, particularly where its prejudicial effect might outweigh its probative value, and the discretion of the trial judge to exclude such evidence. The application for special leave to appeal was ultimately refused.

Orders