Hoser & Anor v The Queen

[2005] HCATrans 357

[2005] HCATrans 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M5 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

RAYMOND TERRENCE HOSER

First Applicant

KOTABI PTY LTD

Second Applicant

and

THE QUEEN (EX PARTE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF VICTORIA)

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 26 MAY 2005, AT 1.55 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   This is an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of Victoria dismissing an appeal to that Court from a judgment of a single judge of the Supreme Court.

The applicants were charged on motion in the Trial Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria with contempt of court by way of scandalising the court.  The counts against them related to two books which they published.  After a trial lasting five days, the trial judge found the first count against the applicants proved, but dismissed the second of them.  The Court of Appeal, in its judgment, dealt comprehensively with each of the applicants’ grounds including a tenth, which it granted the applicants leave to add.  It also dealt comprehensively with the reasons of the trial judge and each of the defences upon which the applicants had sought to maintain.  The respondent had cross‑appealed contending that a conviction should have been entered on the second count also.

In the event the Court of Appeal dismissed the applicants’ appeal and an oral application by them for leave to appeal against an order for costs made by the Supreme Court, and upheld the cross‑appeal with costs, ordering in consequence that a conviction be entered on the second count.  The Court of Appeal further ordered however that no punishment should be imposed on either applicant in respect of that conviction.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the reasons and judgment of the Court of Appeal and accordingly the applicants’ application must be dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed.  I publish that disposition.

AT 1.56 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED