Glykis v Gianoutsos

[2007] HCATrans 6

[2007] HCATrans 006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S159 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MARIA GLYKIS

Applicant

and

MARK GIANOUTSOS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 31 JANUARY 2007, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   This application for special leave to appeal is made in proceedings that began in the Local Court of New South Wales where a Magistrate made an Apprehended Violence Order (“AVO”) against the applicant.

The order was made in consequence of a number of emails sent to the respondent, a medical practitioner.  He was concerned that their sender evidenced delusional, and perhaps psychotic, feelings causing anxiety to him about his, and his wife’s and children’s, safety.  The applicant has at all times maintained that she was not the author of the emails.

The applicant appealed against the AVO to the District Court of New South Wales.  Her appeal was heard by Puckeridge DCJ.  On 19 August 2005, his Honour upheld the appeal, because he was not satisfied that the applicant was the author of the emails or the person who had made harassing telephone calls to the respondent.  The AVO was “dismissed” and the exhibits ordered to be returned.

A proceeding by way of a case stated, pursuant to s 5B of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), was then taken to the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, constituted for this purpose by McClellan CJ at CL, Sully and Hislop JJ. On 1 May 2006, the court granted leave to appeal. It found that in several respects the District Court had misdirected itself as to: the nature of the proceeding; the reception of fresh evidence; the standard of proof to be applied; the issue to be determined; and the reasons given for the ultimate orders. Accordingly, the Court of Criminal Appeal remitted the matter to the District Court “to be determined in accordance with the answers to the questions raised in the appeal”. It also ordered the present applicant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

The applicant has now sought special leave to appeal to this Court.  Her draft notice of appeal is prolix.  It asserts that fraudulent evidence was relied on in the Local Court.  It contests the conclusion that the reasons of Puckeridge DCJ were inadequate.  She attempts to tender fresh evidence to this Court, for use on appeal if special leave were to be granted, contrary to settled authority (see Mickelberg v The Queen (1989) 167 CLR 259; Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1).

We have carefully considered the applicant’s written case.  We are not persuaded that the application enjoys any such prospect of success as to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  We are in short not satisfied that there has been error on the part of the Court of Criminal Appeal.  It follows that the application for special leave must be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED