Jason Ronald Vaughan v The Queen

[2012] HCASL 1

JASON RONALD VAUGHAN
v
THE QUEEN
[2012] HCASL 1
B51/2011

1. The applicant pleaded guilty, in the District Court of Queensland, to four counts of using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence contrary to s 474.17(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). A nolle prosequi was filed in respect of a fifth charge on the indictment. The applicant was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment but an order was made pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that he be released forthwith upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $2,000 conditional upon his being of good behaviour for a period of two years.

2. The applicant sought an extension of the time in which he could appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland against his convictions.  He alleged, amongst other things, that his pre‑trial application to separate the trial of one or more of the charges was wrongly refused.  The applicant also sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him.

3. The Court of Appeal (Muir JA, Margaret Wilson AJA and Philippides J) concluded that the applicant had pleaded guilty in the exercise of a free choice made in his own interests and that there was no miscarriage of justice in holding the applicant to those pleas.  The earlier refusal to order separate trials was rightly treated as irrelevant to whether the applicant should be held to his pleas of guilty.  The Court of Appeal extended the time in which the applicant could appeal against conviction and granted leave to appeal against sentence but dismissed both appeals.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court to renew his arguments based on what he alleges was the wrongful refusal to order separate trials and to allege, apparently for the first time, that a search warrant used to obtain evidence against him was invalid.

5. Even if there were some error in the refusal to order separate trials or if, as the applicant would now seek to allege, the warrant used to obtain evidence against him were defective (neither of which issues we need consider), there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached by the Court of Appeal that the applicant should be held to his pleas of guilty.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
9 February 2012 S.M. Crennan