Nelson Pate (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

NELSON PATE (A PSEUDONYM)

v

THE QUEEN

[2020] HCASL 118
M152/2019

  1. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Priest and Niall JJA and Croucher A‑JA) in part dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction on charges of committing an indecent act with, and in the presence of, a child under the age of 16; rape; and indecent assault.  He requires an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave.

  2. Contrary to the applicant's contention, the Court of Appeal undertook an independent assessment of the evidence, making allowance for the advantages enjoyed by the jury.  An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave.  Hence, it would be futile to grant the extension of time required.

  3. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M Bell G.A.A Nettle
24 April 2020
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nelson Pate (a pseudonym) 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
[2020] HCASL 118
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Nelson Pate (a pseudonym) v The Queen, the applicant sought special leave to appeal against his conviction by the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges of committing an indecent act with, and in the presence of, a child under the age of 16; rape; and indecent assault. The applicant also sought an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria had partially dismissed the applicant's appeal, and the applicant now sought to appeal that decision to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had conducted an independent assessment of the evidence, taking into account the advantages enjoyed by the jury, as claimed by the applicant. Additionally, the Court had to determine if the applicant's appeal to the High Court had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed undertaken an independent assessment of the evidence, allowing for the advantages enjoyed by the jury. The Court concluded that the appeal to the High Court did not possess sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave, rendering it futile to grant the extension of time required by the applicant. As a result, the application for special leave was dismissed.

In light of the above findings, the High Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. This decision was handed down on 24 April 2020 by V.M Bell and G.A.A Nettle.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.