Muir v The Queen

Case [2004] HCA 21


HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McHUGH, KIRBY AND HAYNE JJ

DAVID JOHN MUIR   APPLICANT

AND

THE QUEEN  RESPONDENT

Muir v The Queen
[2004] HCA 21
2 April 2004
C3/2003

ORDER

Notice of motion dismissed.  Application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory refused.

Representation:

No appearance for the applicant

I D Temby QC with J R White for the respondent (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Muir v The Queen

Practice and procedure – High Court – Application for special leave to appeal from orders of Supreme Court of Australian Capital Territory – Application on motion by an indigent prisoner in custody for an order requiring his production to High Court to enable him to make oral submissions in support of application for special leave – Whether the High Court has power to make such an order – Whether it would do so in the case – Whether application to be decided on the papers. 

Constitutional law (Cth) – High Court – Appellate jurisdiction – Whether implied powers under the Constitution to uphold the authority of the High Court – Whether question of power of High Court to order production of an unrepresented prisoner applicant for special leave should be referred to a Full Court – Whether appellate jurisdiction of the High Court engaged at stage of special leave application – Whether differing practices of custodial authorities in different Australian jurisdictions relevant to disposition of motion – Whether motion and application could and should be decided on the papers.

Criminal law and procedure – Sentencing – Convicted federal offender – Statutory provisions governing sentencing of prisoner convicted of offences against Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – Whether sentencing judge correctly applied federal sentencing law – Whether decision of Court of Appeal attended by sufficient doubt to warrant grant of special leave.

Constitution, ss 73, 75.
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16G.
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 35(2), 35AA(2), 78.
High Court Rules, O 55 r 1, O 55 r 39, O 69A r 15.

  1. McHUGH AND HAYNE JJ.   David John Muir has filed an application for special leave to appeal against orders dismissing his appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory against sentences imposed on him for certain federal offences.  Mr Muir is in prison.  He is now being held at Goulburn Correctional Centre.  He has been told by a manager at that facility that, without an order of the Court, the prison authorities will not deliver him to the Court for him to make oral submissions in support of his application for special leave.

  2. Acting under O 69A r 15 of the High Court Rules, McHugh J directed that the application for special leave be determined on the papers.  After the direction under O 69A r 15 had been given, Mr Muir…

Continue reading Muir v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Muir v The Queen [2004] HCA 21
Case
[2004] HCA 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by an indigent prisoner in custody for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The prisoner sought an order requiring his production to the High Court to enable him to make oral submissions in support of his application for special leave. The application was heard by McHugh, Kirby and Hayne JJ.

The High Court was required to determine whether it possessed the power to order the production of an unrepresented prisoner applicant for special leave to appear orally. It also had to consider whether, in the circumstances of this case, such an order should be made, and whether the application for special leave and the related motion should be decided on the papers. Further questions arose regarding the High Court's implied powers under the Constitution to uphold its authority, the engagement of the High Court's appellate jurisdiction at the special leave stage, and the relevance of differing practices of custodial authorities across Australian jurisdictions. The prisoner also sought to challenge the sentencing judge's application of federal sentencing law under the *Crimes Act 1914* (Cth).

The Court reasoned that the question of whether the High Court had the power to order the production of a prisoner applicant for special leave was a matter that could be decided on the papers, without the need for oral submissions or the prisoner's physical presence. The Court noted that the stage of an application for special leave to appeal does not engage the full appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. Consequently, the Court concluded that it was not necessary or appropriate to order the prisoner's production.

The notice of motion seeking the prisoner's production was dismissed, and the application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Notice of motion dismissed. Application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

HUGH AND HAYNE JJ KIRBY J (dissent)

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HUGH AND HAYNE JJ,

Full text does not contain this section.