Patsalis v The Queen

[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

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Patsalis v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal from a conviction for armed robbery. The appellant, Patsalis, had been found guilty by a jury and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The appeal to the High Court concerned the admissibility of certain evidence and the fairness of the trial process.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence that the appellant had previously been involved in a similar offence. This evidence was admitted on the basis that it was relevant to establishing the appellant's identity and his propensity to commit such offences. The court was required to determine if the probative value of this evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect, and if its admission had resulted in an unfair trial.

The High Court, comprising Hayne and Crennan JJ, analysed the principles governing the admission of evidence of prior convictions or similar fact evidence. Their Honours held that such evidence is generally inadmissible because it tends to show that the accused has a disposition to commit the crime charged, and therefore may have committed it. While exceptions exist where the evidence has a specific probative value beyond mere propensity, such as establishing identity or a common modus operandi, the court found that in this instance, the evidence admitted was not sufficiently distinct or compelling to justify its reception. The court concluded that the admission of this evidence had created an unacceptable risk of unfair prejudice to the appellant, thereby vitiating the fairness of the trial.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and ordered a new trial.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established