Glennon v The Queen

This matter comes before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal by Michael Charles Glennon. The dispute concerns the application of the proviso by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Victoria. The applicant contends that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in its application of the proviso, which was invoked following an identified breach of a legal principle by the trial judge. This error, it is argued, arose from the way the Court of Criminal Appeal analysed the facts and issues pertaining to specific counts, thereby marginalising and trivialising the defences presented.

The central legal issue before the High Court is whether the Court of Criminal Appeal correctly applied the proviso to the facts of the case. Specifically, the applicant argues that the Court of Criminal Appeal's approach to the grounds of appeal, which were not part of the original grounds but were introduced following a relevant High Court decision and at the invitation of the Chief Justice, led to an improper application of the proviso. The applicant also raises concerns about the structure and context of the trial judge's directions to the jury, particularly the provision of transcribed general legal principles to the jury in written form, which remained with them throughout their deliberations.

The applicant's argument centres on the submission that the Court of Criminal Appeal, in its analysis of the grounds limited to two specific counts, effectively trivialised the defences. This, it is contended, led to the erroneous application of the proviso, which allows an appeal to be dismissed despite a legal error if it is considered that no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred. The applicant further submits that the written form of the general legal directions, provided to the jury before their deliberations on individual counts, meant that any erroneous directions were present throughout the jury's consideration of each count.