Olney v The Queen

[1999] HCATrans 147

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B26 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

HOWARD WILLIAM OLNEY

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 24 JUNE 1999, AT 1.14 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D.L. MEREDITH:   I appear with my learned friend, MR C.W. HEATON, for the respondent.  (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

McHUGH J:   There is no appearance in ‑ ‑ ‑

MR MEREDITH:   No.

McHUGH J:   The matter is to be dealt with on the papers, then, as I understand it.

MR MEREDITH:   Thank you, your Honour.

McHUGH J:   The Court is in position to give judgment in this matter.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against an order of the Court of Appeal in the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissing his appeal against a conviction for the murder of a person on board a shipping vessel off the coast of Queensland on 24 September 1993.  His appeal to the Court of Appeal was based on the ground that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory.  Subsequently, the applicant sought an extension of time in the Court of Appeal to file a further appeal on the basis of sufficiency of evidence, the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to try him and alleged errors in the expert evidence that was given against him at his trial.

In this application for special leave to appeal he seeks to raise a number of issues.  They involve questions concerning or involving the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Queensland to try him, the conduct of counsel who appeared for him, the expert evidence at the trial, the failure or inability to call a number of witnesses, whether the Crown had discharged its onus of proof, particularly with respect to self‑defence which was the principal issue of the trial, whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory and whether a new trial should be ordered to hear fresh evidence with respect to the credibility of Crown witnesses and the results of blood tests.

In our opinion, the application for special leave should be refused.  The appeal raises no issues of law requiring the grant of special leave.  In so far as the applicant relies on questions of fact, not only do they not warrant the grant of special leave, there is no reason to think that the matters now relied on would have altered the verdict of the jury or the reasoning or findings of the Court of Appeal.  In addition, no point was raised at the applicant’s trial in respect of many of these matters and his counsel conceded at the trial the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to try him.  The case against the applicant was a very strong one.  There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the jury’s verdict or to think that there may have been a miscarriage of justice.  Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

AT 1.17 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED