Peter Glenn Wright v The Queen

[2005] ACTCA 18

PETER GLENN WRIGHT v THE QUEEN [2005] ACTCA 18 (2 May 2005)

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

No. ACTCA 32 - 2004
No. SCC 101 of 2003

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory
Date:            2 May 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 32 - 2004
  )  No. SCC 101 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:PETER GLENN WRIGHT

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

ORDER

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Date:  2 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the applications be dismissed on the ground that the appeal would be incompetent.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 32 - 2004
  )  No. SCC 101 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:PETER GLENN WRIGHT

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Date:  2 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

CRISPIN P:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal against a ruling made by the Chief Justice to the effect that Ms Kelly, the wife of the accused, is a competent and compellable witness at his trial.  The accused is charged with assaulting her and thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to her.  There is an alternative count of common assault.

1. At the trial of the action, Ms Kelly objected to giving evidence and an issue as to her compellability then arose.  His Honour took the view that the appropriate course was to discharge the jury and stand the matter over for separate argument.  During the course of the subsequent argument, the accused was represented by Mr Thomas, who appears for him again as the appellant before us today, but Ms Kelly was not represented.

1. It is clear that the issue both before his Honour and on the application for leave to appeal relates not to the admissibility of the evidence that Ms Kelly might give at the trial, but to whether she has a right to decline to give evidence or whether, conversely, she is a compellable witness.  However, that issue was determined before his Honour and is raised in the present application without her having been a party to either proceeding.

1. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the ruling which his Honour made could not bind Ms Kelly and that the proposed appeal would be incompetent.  I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal out of time and the application for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment on that ground. 

   I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, President Crispin.

   Associate:

   Date: 10 May 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE           )            No. ACTCA 32 - 2004

)  No. SCC 101 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:PETER GLENN WRIGHT

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Date:  2 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GRAY J:

1. I agree.

   I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered five (5) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour Justice Gray.

   Associate:

   Date: 10 May 2005

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE  )   No. ACTCA 32 - 2004
  )  No. SCC 101 of 2003
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY  )
  )

COURT OF APPEAL  )

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:PETER GLENN WRIGHT

Appellant

AND:THE QUEEN

Respondent

Judges:  Crispin P, Gray and Madgwick JJ
Date:  2 May 2005
Place:  Canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

MADGWICK J:

1. I agree.

   I certify that the preceding paragraph numbered six (6) is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of his Honour, Justice Madgwick.

   Associate:
   Date: 10 May 2005

Counsel for the appellant:  Mr R Thomas
Solicitor for the appellant:  Garry Bates & Co

Counsel for the respondent:  Mr R Refshauge SC
Solicitor for the respondent:  ACT Director of Public Prosecutions

Date of hearing:  2 May 2005
Date of judgment:  2 May 2005