Peter Glenn Wright v The Queen

Peter Glenn Wright, the appellant, sought leave to appeal against a ruling of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The ruling concerned the compellability of Ms Kelly, the wife of the accused, as a witness at his trial. The accused faced charges of assaulting his wife, occasioning actual bodily harm, and common assault.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant could appeal a ruling on the compellability of his wife as a witness, particularly when she had not been a party to the proceedings where the ruling was made and had not been represented on the appeal. The court was required to determine if such an appeal was competent.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the ruling on Ms Kelly's compellability, made in her absence and without her representation, could not bind her. Consequently, any appeal against that ruling, brought by the accused, would be incompetent because the issue directly affected Ms Kelly's rights and obligations as a potential witness. The court held that the appeal was not competent as Ms Kelly was not a party to the proceedings.

The applications for leave to appeal out of time and for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment were dismissed on the ground that the appeal was incompetent.