Henderson v The Queen

[1999] HCATrans 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M103 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

JOHN WILLIAM HENDERSON

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M104 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

JOHN WILLIAM HENDERSON

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 1999, AT 12.19 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_____________________

GUMMOW J:   In this matter the Court has been notified that there will be no supplementation of the written submissions by oral argument.       The applicant and the respondent have provided written submissions.  They have been considered by the Court.

In matter No M103 of 1998 the issue said to attract the grant of special leave is whether, in the circumstances of the case, the applicant could properly be convicted of burglary and theft.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal of Victoria on this point.  Nothing in the Court’s recent decision in Pearce v The Queen (1998) 72 ALJR 1416, 156 ALR 684 requires or suggests a different decision. The application is therefore refused.

In matter No M104 of 1998 the issues concern a suggestion that the verdicts returned by a jury were inconsistent and that the convictions were unsafe.  The Court does not regard the points raised as having either legal or factual merit.  Accordingly this application is also refused.

The order is both applications refused.

AT 12.21 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED