Howes v the Queen M110/2000 - [2000] HCATrans 603

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M110 of 2000

B e t w e e n -
RODNEY STEWART HOWES
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Bail Application

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 13 OCTOBER 2000, AT 9.38 AM

MR P.A. D’ARCY: May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Capell Burke)

MR G.G. HICKS: May it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by the Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr D’Arcy. Mr D’Arcy, you should assume that I have read the outlines of submissions that have been made for the bail application. I have read the Court of Appeal judgment and the application for special leave. I have looked also, although not read entirely, those parts of the transcript of the applicant’s trial that have been made available.

MR D’ARCY: Thank you, your Honour, for that indication. I rely on the material set out in the affidavit in support and, as I follow the principles, I am required to show exceptional circumstances before the Court could grant bail. I take it from the respondent’s position that there is no suggestion, other than the need to show exceptional circumstances, that there is any other underlying problem with the grant of bail.

HIS HONOUR: So do I. I think that for present purposes, Mr D’Arcy, the point that would assist me most is to hear what you say about prospects of success on the application for leave.

MR D’ARCY: Yes. That really turns to the ground of appeal that was described generally as the unsafe and unsatisfactory ground, and the applicant’s submission about that is, in essence, that the ground was not in any adequate way determined by the Court of Appeal. In saying that, I take your Honour to the parts of the Court of Appeal’s judgment where his Honour the President refers to that area of argument at the bottom of page 1 of the court’s judgment, in the last paragraph on that page where it is set out:

Ground 3B averred that the jury’s verdict was and unsatisfactory because there was no evidence upon which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could have found that the aforementioned element was proved.

His Honour then continues on and in the next full paragraph sets out:

I agree, for the reasons advanced by Brooking, J.A., that grounds 3A and 3B should be rejected.

He then turns to an analysis of the words “under the care, supervision or authority”. On the last page of the judgment his Honour Mr Justice Chernov recites that he agrees with the reasons advanced by their Honours and says no more. It is at page 44 of the judgment that the only area of stated dealing with this ground is set out by his Honour Mr Justice Brooking. He commences in the first full paragraph on page…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Howes v the Queen M110/2000

Details

AGLC: Howes v the Queen M110/2000 [2000] HCATrans 603
Case: [2000] HCATrans 603
Decision Date: 13 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia by the applicant, Mr Howes, against the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of Queensland. The applicant sought to challenge his conviction for murder and the sentence imposed.

The primary legal issue before Hayne J was whether the applicant had established an arguable case of error in the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal to the High Court. This involved considering whether the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant had sufficient merit to justify further consideration by the High Court.

Hayne J considered the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant, which related to alleged misdirections by the trial judge and the sufficiency of the evidence. After reviewing the material before him, Hayne J concluded that no arguable case of error had been demonstrated. His Honour found that the grounds of appeal did not raise any question of law that warranted the attention of the High Court.

Accordingly, special leave to appeal was refused.

Orders