Geoffrey Leslie Armour v The Queen - [2013] HCASL 158

GEOFFREY LESLIE ARMOUR
v
THE QUEEN
[2013] HCASL 158
M48/2013

The applicant pleaded guilty to one count of murder in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Lasry J). The applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 26 years and was required to serve 21 years before being eligible to make an application for release on parole.
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Harper JA) refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant then elected under s 315(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic) to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence. A differently constituted Court of Appeal (Maxwell P and Mandie JA) refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against that refusal.
The application is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.
The material canvassed in the applicant's draft notice of appeal and the written case is directed to material which has been advanced twice in the Court of Appeal and which is alleged to cast doubt on the application of the parity principle. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal.
Further, the applicant seeks to rely on evidence not relied upon below to advance again grounds of appeal which are not reasonably arguable. It is not shown to be in the interests of justice, either generally or in this particular case, that the applicant be granted special leave to appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
9 October 2013
S.M. Crennan

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Geoffrey Leslie Armour v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 158
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Geoffrey Leslie Armour versus The Queen, the applicant, Armour, who had pleaded guilty to one count of murder, appealed against the refusal of his application for leave to appeal against his sentence. Armour was sentenced to 26 years in prison with 21 years non-parole period. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria twice dismissed his application for leave to appeal, leading Armour to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court. Armour's application was out of time, and he sought an order to dispense with the requirement to comply with the time limit in the High Court Rules.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant was entitled to special leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's refusal of his application for leave to appeal against sentence. The Court needed to determine if the application was brought out of time and if it was in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court needed to consider whether the applicant's grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable and whether the evidence relied upon was admissible.

The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusions. The Court of Appeal had already considered the material canvassed in Armour's draft notice of appeal and written case twice, and it was not shown to be in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal. Armour sought to rely on evidence not relied upon below to advance grounds of appeal that were not reasonably arguable. The Court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders