Peter Frederick Clark v The Queen

[2013] HCASL 49

PETER FREDERICK CLARK

v

THE QUEEN

[2013] HCASL 49
S346/2012

1. On 12 December 2006, at a trial before a judge alone, the applicant was found guilty in the District Court of New South Wales (Garling DCJ) of one count of attempting to procure a child over the age of 14 years to be used for pornographic purposes, one count of inciting a person under the age of 16 years to commit an act of indecency towards him and one count of possession of child pornography.  The applicant was sentenced to a non-parole period of two years for the first count, a fixed term of six months for the second count and a non-parole period of 12 months for the third count.

2. The applicant appealed against conviction and sought leave to appeal against sentence.  On 30 May 2008, the Court of Criminal Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Bell JA, Barr and Buddin JJ) allowed the appeal against conviction in part, quashed the applicant's conviction on the count of possession of child pornography, granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal against sentence in part.  The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the orders made by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

3. This special leave application is brought substantially out of time and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 dispensing with the need to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1.

4. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10.

5. Much of the draft notice of appeal and the written case is directed to material which was not in evidence in the Court below and which is alleged to cast doubt on the applicant's conviction.  The additional material on which the applicant seeks to rely is not admissible in the appellate jurisdiction in this Court[1].  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Criminal Appeal on the material that was before that Court.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
10 April 2013 S.M. Crennan

[1]Eastman v The Queen (2000) 203 CLR 1.