Patsalis v The Queen

[2007] HCATrans 651

[2007] HCATrans 651

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S237 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

MICHAEL PATSALIS

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2007, AT 9.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   On 24 September 1999, after trial in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, the applicant and Alexios Spathis were each convicted of the murders of Klaus Peter Ludwig.  The applicant was sentenced to a minimum term of 16 years and an additional term of 5½ years.  The applicant and his co-accused both appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against conviction and the applicant sought leave to appeal against sentence.  On 29 November 2001, the Court of Criminal Appeal (Heydon JA, Carruthers and Smart AJJ) dismissed the appeals and the application for leave to appeal (R v Spathis; R v Patsalis [2001] NSWCCA 476). Mr Spathis unsuccessfully sought special leave to appeal to this Court. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal. His application was filed well out of time. No satisfactory explanation for the delay is identified. The applicant is unrepresented and has filed comprehensive written submissions.

The applicant originally identified 34 special leave questions and 15 proposed grounds of appeal.  Yesterday, on 7 November 2007, he filed proposed amendments to his application for special leave, his draft notice of appeal and his reply.  Both in their original form and in the proposed amended form, the applicant's documents, for the most part, repeat the substance of complaints made in the applicant's appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal.  In particular, a number of the proposed grounds raise allegations of incompetent representation at trial.  These allegations, and the consequences that were alleged to have followed from the incompetence of the counsel who appeared for the applicant during various parts of his trial, were examined comprehensively in the reasons of the Court of Criminal Appeal.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached on those issues.

As to the other issues the applicant now seeks to agitate about the conduct of his trial and about the conduct of his appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal, we are not persuaded that it is arguable that there has been a miscarriage of justice or that it is in the interests of justice, whether generally or in the particular circumstances of this case, for there to be a grant of special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his appeal against conviction.  This conclusion is reinforced when regard is had to the lapse of so much time between the Court of Criminal Appeal making its orders and the commencement of this application.

In so far as the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against sentence, it is enough to say that we see no error in the order made or the reasons given by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The application for special leave is dismissed.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish that disposition.

AT 9.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED