JS v The State of Western Australia

JS
v
THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
[2013] HCASL 166
P32/2013

The applicant was found guilty in the District Court of Western Australia of one count of indecent dealing with a child under the age of 13 years and two counts of indecent dealing with another child under the age of 13 years.
The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McLure P, Buss and Mazza JJA) dismissed the applicant's applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
In the Court of Appeal, the applicant submitted that the trial judge (Sweeney DCJ) had not sufficiently directed the jury (in accordance with this Court's decision in Longman v The Queen[1]) about the consequences, for his defence of the charges, that followed from the time that had elapsed between the alleged offences and complaints being made. The applicant further submitted that the trial judge had not sufficiently directed the jury (in accordance with s 36BD of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA) and this Court's decision in Crofts v The Queen[2]) about the use the jury could make, in assessing the complainants' evidence, of this delay in making a complaint.
[1](1989) 168 CLR 79; [1989] HCA 60.
[2](1996) 186 CLR 427; [1996] HCA 22.
The applicant seeks to argue in this Court not only the matters agitated in the Court of Appeal but also several other grounds not previously raised by him.
We see no reason to doubt the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal in respect of the arguments advanced in that Court. It is not shown to be in the interests of justice, either generally or in this particular case, that the applicant have special leave to appeal to argue any of the other issues he seeks to raise for the first time in this Court.
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 October 2013 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involves an applicant, JS, who was found guilty in the District Court of Western Australia of multiple counts of indecent dealing with a child under 13 years of age. The applicant's appeal against the conviction and sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, and JS seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court against this dismissal. The applicant, unrepresented, must follow specific procedural rules for the application. The applicant argues that the trial judge failed to properly instruct the jury about the implications of the time elapsed between the alleged offences and the complaints made, and about the use of this delay in assessing the complainants' evidence.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the trial judge's jury instructions were adequate under relevant case law and statutory provisions. The applicant contends that the jury should have been more thoroughly directed on the consequences of the time lag between the alleged offences and the complaints, and on how this delay could affect the credibility of the complainants' evidence. The court also had to consider whether it was in the interests of justice for the applicant to be allowed to raise additional grounds of appeal for the first time at the High Court.

The court found no merit in the applicant's arguments that the Court of Appeal had erred in dismissing the appeal. It was determined that the trial judge had sufficiently directed the jury in line with relevant case law and statutory requirements. Additionally, the court held that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the applicant to raise new issues that had not been previously presented in the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal should be dismissed. Pursuant to the relevant rule, the Registrar was directed to prepare the necessary order to dismiss the application.

The court's decision was to deny the applicant special leave to appeal. The order dismissing the application was to be drawn up, signed, and sealed by the Registrar. This decision effectively ends the applicant's opportunity to challenge the original conviction and sentence through the High Court on the grounds presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established