Markham Moore-McQuillan v The Queen - [2015] HCASL 97

MARKHAM MOORE-MCQUILLAN
v
THE QUEEN
[2015] HCASL 97
A23/2014

The applicant was convicted by a jury of two counts of threatening to cause harm, contrary to s 19(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The charges related to comments made by the applicant during and immediately following a hearing in the Workers Compensation Tribunal.
On 30 October 2014, the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Peek, Blue and Nicholson JJ) set aside the verdict and acquitted the applicant in relation to one count, holding that it was not open to the jury on the evidence to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had committed that offence. However, the Court dismissed the appeal in relation to the remaining count of which the applicant had been convicted, holding that no ground of appeal had been established and that the conviction was supported by the evidence.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The applicant's draft notice of appeal does not raise any question of principle that would justify a grant of special leave. The applicant's complaints in respect of the Workers Compensation Tribunal proceedings are not relevant in the current proceedings. The applicant's allegations of bias are not supported by evidence before this Court, nor do they articulate any error in the dismissal of the same claims by the Court below. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision. Special leave is refused.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
18 June 2015 P.A. Keane

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Markham Moore-McQuillan v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] HCASL 97
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Markham Moore-McQuillan appealed against his conviction for two counts of threatening to cause harm, which were brought under section 19(2) of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The charges stemmed from remarks made by Moore-McQuillan during and after a hearing in the Workers Compensation Tribunal. The Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia had set aside the verdict for one count but upheld the conviction for the other. Moore-McQuillan sought special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's draft notice of appeal contained any questions of principle that would warrant granting special leave. Additionally, the court examined whether Moore-McQuillan's complaints about the Workers Compensation Tribunal proceedings were pertinent to the current appeal, and if his allegations of bias were substantiated by the evidence presented. The court also considered whether there were grounds to question the correctness of the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision.

The court found that the applicant's draft notice of appeal did not raise any questions of principle that would justify special leave. The complaints about the Workers Compensation Tribunal proceedings were deemed irrelevant to the appeal. Moreover, the allegations of bias lacked evidence and did not identify any errors in the dismissal of similar claims by the lower court. The court was satisfied with the correctness of the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision, leading to the refusal of special leave. The court ordered the Registrar to draft, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders