Par v The Queen

PAR
v
THE QUEEN
[2015] HCASL 212
B44/2014

Following a trial in the District Court of Queensland, the applicant was convicted of one count of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child (Count 1), two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who was his lineal descendant (Counts 4 and 9) and one count of indecent treatment of a child under 12 who was his lineal descendant (Count 8).
He appealed against his conviction and the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Fraser JA, Atkinson and Jackson JJ agreeing) dismissed the appeal.
The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court on grounds that the Court of Appeal erred in finding that there had been no miscarriage of justice as a result of the trial judge's method of inquiry into the fitness of one of the jurors, with consequent necessity to discharge that juror; erred in applying the proviso; and, further or alternatively, erred in applying the proviso in circumstances where the discharge of the juror amounted to a fundamental irregularity going to the root of the proceedings.
The applicant has not advanced sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal to dismiss his appeal against conviction. Nor would it be in the interests of justice, either generally or in this particular case, that special leave to appeal be granted.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

G.A.A. Nettle
11 November 2015 M.M. Gordon

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of PARvTHE QUEEN was heard by the High Court of Australia, with the applicant seeking special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant had been convicted in the District Court of Queensland of maintaining a sexual relationship with a child and indecent treatment of children under the age of 16 and 12 who were his lineal descendants. The Supreme Court of Appeal of Queensland dismissed the applicant's appeal against his conviction and sentence. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to the High Court, arguing that the Court of Appeal erred in several respects, including in relation to the fitness of one of the jurors.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the applicant's arguments that the Court of Appeal erred in its decision, specifically in relation to the fitness of a juror, the application of the proviso, and the discharge of the juror amounting to a fundamental irregularity. The applicant argues that these errors resulted in a miscarriage of justice, and that special leave to appeal should be granted. The court must consider whether the applicant has provided sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision and whether it would be in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal.

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss his appeal against conviction. The court considered the arguments put forward by the applicant but ultimately found that they were not sufficient to warrant special leave to appeal. The court also considered whether it would be in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal but found that it would not be. As a result, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The court found that the applicant's arguments did not provide sufficient grounds to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, and that it would not be in the interests of justice to grant special leave to appeal. The application was dismissed, and the order was signed and sealed by the Registrar.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established