Hoar, Donald Edgar v The Queen

[1982] FCA 61

X

,r+

<c

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	1
1

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT	REGISTRY	)	No. NT G 5 of 1 9 8 2
1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

DONALD EDGAR HOAR

Applicant

TIIE QUEEN

Respondent

1 5 ( 2 ) t o f i l e and serve a not ice o f appea l ou t o f t ime

made a s a n o r i g i n a l a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s C o u r t a s a F u l l

Court . The a p p l i c a n t was convic ted i n t h e Supreme

Court	of	the	Northern	Terr	i	tory	on	1 7 October	1980 on	a
charge	o	f	conspi	r	ing	to	commit an	offence	under	the

F i s h e r i e s Act (formerly Ordinance) 1 9 6 5 as amended, and

i t i s a g a i n s t t h a t c o n v i c t i o n t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t s e e k s

to appea l .

From the sen tcnce imposed for th i s o f fencc the

Crown appea led to th i s Cour t and the sen tence was

increased . A t t h e same time a f o r f e i t u r e o f p r o p e r t y o f

t h e a p p l i c a n t o r d e r e d by t h e Suprcme Court was quashed.

The p roceed ings be fo re t hc Cour t a r e r epor t ed a t 34 ALR 357.

The Crown appea led to the High Cour t aga ins t

the	quashing	of	the for fe i ture	and	the	p	resent	appl icant
a t t h e	same	t ime sough t	spec ia l	l eave	t o	appea	l	aga ins t

t he s en tence imposed by t h i s C o u r t , on t h e appeal t o i t .

The High	Court	on	4	December	1 9 8 1 d isa l lowed	the	appea l
and	r e f u s e d	t h e	a p p l i c a t i o n f o r	s p e c i a l	l e a v e	t o	a p p e a l .

The judgment of the High Court i s r e p o r t e d a t 56 A L J R 4 3 .

The sen tence fo r t he consp i r acy was imprison-

ment f o r 1 4 months Kith a non-paro le per iod of six months.

WC a r e t o l d t h a t i t i s expec ted t ha t t he app l i can t wlll

be r e l e a s e d on p a r o l e on 1 5 May 1 9 8 2 .

A l l t h a t i s sought i n t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n i s l eavc

t o f i l e and s e rve t he no t i ce o f appea l ou t o f t ime . I t

would t a k e s e v e r a l weeks a t l e a s t b e f o r e a p p e a l m a t e r i a l s

could be ready. The n e x t s i t t i n g s o f t h e C o u r t i n Darwin

a r e due t o commence on 2 5 May 1 9 8 2 .

The s u b s t a n t i a l g r o u n d o f t h e a p p l i c a t i o n i s

t h a t an impor tan t wi tness for the p rosecut ion a t the

t r i a l , d e s c r i b e d i n some o f t he ma te r i a l be fo re us as

t h e main witness , has f o r m a l l y s t a t e d , i n t h e p r e s e n c e o f

h i s own s o l i c i t o r , t h a t i n e f f e c t h e p e r J u r e d h m s e l f a t

t h e t r i a l and gave important evidence contrary to the

f a c t . T h i s r e t r a c t i o n a n d a l t c r a t i o n o f h i s own cvidence

only	became	known	t o t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s a d v i s e r s r c c e n t l y .
They	t h e r e a f t e r t o o k s t e p s p r o m p t l y t o	make	t h i s

appl ica t ion , and no sugges t ion t o t he con t r a ry has been

made. I t i s a l so no t sugges t ed t ha t l cavc shou ld be

re fused on any ground connected with the appeals to

which I have a l r eady r e fe r r ed .

The s ta tements deposed to as having been made

a re be fo re us , and we have been r c fe r r ed t o t he summing-

up o f t h e t r i a l j u d g e a s w e l l a s o t h e r material, inc lud ing

a f f i d a v i t s f i l e d on b o t h s i d e s .

The appl icat ion has been opposed by t h e Crown.

A pr inc ipa l g round, perhaps the on ly subs tan t ia l g round,

i s t h a t t h e w i t n e s s , Mr. Br idges , who made a n a f f i d a v i t ,

has n o t appeared before us t o he cross-examined. I t i s

n o t d i s p u t e d t h a t amplc n o t i c e was given by t h e Crown.

The explana t ion g iven by c o u n s e l f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t 1s

tha t he cannot a t p resent be found.

ObJect ion was t aken t o t he admiss ion o f t he

a f f i d a v i t , and i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e o p p o s i t i o n i t s

admission was not pressed. Counsel f o r t h e a p p l i c a n t has

made i t c l e a r t h a t h i s c a s e r e s t s on the ev idcnce ,

admi t ted ly before us t h a t t h e w i t n e s s , B r i d g e s d i d make

the s ta tements to which I have r e fe r r ed . On behalf of

t h e Crown, evidence was tendered	and	admit	ted	to	the
e f f e c t t h a t a t	a n e a r l i e r d a t e ,	i n	December	1 9 8 0 ,	Bridges
had	complained	that	he	was	b e i n g s u b j e c t e d t o p r c s s u r e t o

g ive cv idence favourable to the accused .

A matter emphasised by counse l for the Crown i s

tha t t h i s Cour t shou ld , be fo re g ran t ing l eave , havc

admissible evidence o f Br idges h imsel f before i t . Under-

s tandably , I t h i n k , t h c Crol\n i s concerned that the appeal

process now be p u t I n t r a i n on t h c b a s i s o f what has

been sa id by Br idges , w i thou t an oppor tun i ty t o t e s t

t ha t ev idence .

We are , however , only deal ing with an

a p p l i c a t i o n t o f i l e and scrve out of t ime. The t e s t

for us i n a case such a s t he p re scn t , and havlng i n

mlnd what I h a v e s a i d e a r l i e r , i s whether a s e r i o u s

q u e s t i o n a r i s e s t o b e p r c s e n t e d t o a court of appeal

as to should whether the convlc t ion should be maintained. IVe

no t in t rude on t h e t a s k o€ t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t .

The f a c t t h a t a s e r i o u s q u e s t i o n a r i s e s i s , I b e l i e v e ,

emphasised by the a€f idavi t evidcnce tendered by t h c

Crown.	I t may be ,	o	f	cou r sc ,	t ha t	i f	cross-examined,
Bridges	would	recant	from	the	statements	relied	upon

by t h e a p p l i c a n t , b u t a qucst ion would remain as to what ,

i f anythlng, should be done about the conviction. Put

another way, I b e l i e v e i t i s s u f f l c l c n t f o r us on t h i s

a p p l i c a t i o n t o know tha t he has made the s t a t emcn t s

wi thout having to be sa t l s f iec l o f the t ru th 01 t h e i r

con tcn t s .

The s i t u a t i o n i s an unusual one, but I am of

thc v iew tha t l eave should be g iven t o en la rge t he t ime .

The app l i can t has a l s o a p p l i e d f o r b a i l . As

t he appea l	has	no t	ye t	been i n s t i t u t ed ,	~t	would	be	i n -
a p p r o p r i a t e	f o r	u s t o	g r a n t	b a i l	a t	t h i s	t l m e .	In my

view, once the appeal i s on f o o t , a n a p p l i c a t l o n c a n b e

made t o a judge i n acco rdance w i th t he ru l e s . As t h e

. . ..

quest ion	has	becn	argued	before	u s ,	I	s h o u l d s a y t h a t ,
i n my	vicw,	the	case	i s an	appropr ia te	one	f o r b a i l .

The c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e b a i l will need separa te cons ider -

a t i o n by the judge, and i t would t h e r e f o r e seem

p r e f e r a b l e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be made i n Darwin.

For thosc reasons I propose tha t thc fo l lowing

orders be	made:
1. That time €or f i l i n g and se rv ing a

no t i ce	o f	appea l	aga ins t	conv ic t ion
be	extended	up	t o and	including 16

A p r i l 1 9 8 2 .

2 . That no order be made on t h e a p p l i -

c a t i o n f o r b a i l .

DEANE J .

I am in complete agreement w i t h t h e comments

made by Mr. J u s t i c c Fox and with the orders whlch he

proposes.

McGREGOR	J.
I would agrce with the orders proposcd and for

t he r easons g iven .

FOX J.

The o r d e r s of t h e c o u r t a r e , t h e r e f o r e :

1. That t ime for i i l i n g and serving a

n o t l c e of appea l aga ins t conv ic t ion

bc extended up t o and inc lud ing 16

A p r i l 1 9 8 2 .

. I -

*

. a

- 6 -

2. That no order bc madc on t h e a p p l i -

c a t i o n f o r b a i l .

I.

.&---L

t i