Legal Research
Cases
Peters v The Queen

Peters v The Queen

Case [1996] HCATrans 384

Appeal

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

TRANSCRIPT
OF PROCEEDINGS

AUSCRIPT

Victoria
Level 7
451 Little Bourke St
Melbourne VIC 3000
GPO Box 1114J
Melbourne VIC 3001
Phone (03) 9672 5608
Fax (03) 9670 8883

O/N 5957
A 12.12.96
A 17.12.96
A 18.12.96

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MELBOURNE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRY

No. M87 of 1996

BETWEEN:PHILIP PETERS

Applicant

- and -

THE QUEEN

Respondent

DAWSON J (In Chambers)

AT MELBOURNE, FRIDAY THE 6TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1996
AT 2.15 PM

MR P.G. PRIEST: I appear for the applicant (instructed by Jonathon Kemp & Associates).

MR N.T. ROBINSON: I appear on behalf of the respondent (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth)).

HIS HONOUR: Mr Priest.

MR PRIEST: Your Honour, the principles upon which this application fall to be determined are tolerably clear and it will not ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: Well, you have got to show some exceptional circumstances.

MR PRIEST: Exceptional circumstances. And, your Honour, what I rely upon as being exceptional are two things. First of all, it seems clear enough that by the time the special leave application came to be dealt with there would be one day of the actual custodial component of the sentence imposed left to be served. That of itself, your Honour, I accept may not be and, indeed, probably is not exceptional, but it is ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR: You have got to show some prospect of success at least of getting special leave.

MR PRIEST: Yes. Your Honour recently said in Mpeheleranas and Kostakidis this, it has been supplied, your Honour, in the bundle of cases, at page 25, line 35:

The applicant's application is for special leave to appeal and any appeals if leave is granted can it seems to me be heard in this Court before the expiration of their sentences and before they become eligible for parole.

And I interpolate at this stage, your Honour, to say that that distinguishes this case because that is not equally applicable here.

HIS HONOUR: Well, the sentence will not have expired by the time you come on for hearing.

MR PRIEST: The sentence will not, but unlike a minimum term in the usually understood sense when a person is the subject of a recognisance release order they must be released at the expiry of that recognisance release term as opposed to being subject to the vicissitudes of a Parole Board, and that distinguishes this case too.

HIS HONOUR: But they are liable to be taken back to prison if they misbehave during the parole period?

MR PRIEST: That is so, yes:

The application for special leave in any appeals will not therefore be rendered futile if bail is not granted because the applicants will still have a non-parole portion ...(reads)... if bail is not granted.

If I can take your Honour then to the next paragraph and, with respect, I submit this is probably the more important part of it:

Moreover even if I were to consider that the reduced effectiveness…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Peters v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Peters v The Queen [1996] HCATrans 384
Case: [1996] HCATrans 384
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Peters v The Queen*, the High Court of Australia considered an appeal by the applicant, Peters, against his conviction for murder. The dispute centred on the admissibility of certain evidence during his trial.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial judge had erred in admitting evidence of the applicant's prior convictions. Specifically, the court had to determine if this evidence was improperly used to suggest that the applicant had a propensity to commit criminal acts, thereby prejudicing the jury against him.

Dawson J, delivering the judgment, reasoned that evidence of prior convictions is generally inadmissible if its sole purpose is to establish a person's character or propensity to commit the crime charged. However, such evidence may be admitted if it has a relevant probative value for a purpose other than establishing propensity, such as demonstrating a common design or a particular system. In this instance, Dawson J found that the evidence of prior convictions was admitted without sufficient consideration of its potential prejudicial effect and its limited probative value for a purpose other than propensity. The court concluded that the admission of this evidence constituted a miscarriage of justice.

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

Orders