Doggett v the Queen B54/2000 - [2000] HCATrans 661

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 B54/2000

Details

AGLC: Doggett v the Queen B54/2000 [2000] HCATrans 661
Case: [2000] HCATrans 661
Decision Date: 31 October 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