Phillip Mark Stamp v The Queen - [2013] HCASL 21

PHILLIP MARK STAMP
v
THE QUEEN
[2013] HCASL 21
D7/2012

On 28 May 2010, following a jury trial in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, the applicant was convicted of eight offences. On 10 June 2010, he was sentenced by the trial judge (Kelly J) to imprisonment for a total of 11 years with a non-parole period of seven years.
The applicant sought extensions of time to appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal (Riley CJ, Southwood J and Olsson AJ) considered each of the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal in detail and held that none could be sustained. It refused the applications for extensions of time on 19 September 2012.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the part of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal refusing his application for an extension of time within which to appeal against his conviction. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file his application. That extension should be refused.
The applicant's proposed grounds of appeal are that certain evidence should not have been admitted; that his counsel's alleged failure to pursue points "in a much more vigorous manner" occasioned a miscarriage of justice; and that certain inconsistencies in the evidence at trial "were placed before the jury, but not in the manner instructed". In substance, each of those grounds was considered and rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The interests of justice do not require the grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

S.M. Kiefel
13 March 2013 S.J. Gageler

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Phillip Mark Stamp v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] HCASL 21
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Phillip Mark Stamp appealed against his conviction and sentence to the High Court, seeking special leave to appeal against the refusal of an extension of time. The Court of Criminal Appeal had already dismissed the appeal and refused the applicant's requests for an extension of time. The applicant sought special leave to appeal against the part of the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal that refused his application for an extension of time to appeal against his conviction. The applicant argued that certain evidence should not have been admitted, that his counsel's alleged failure to pursue points in a more vigorous manner caused a miscarriage of justice, and that certain inconsistencies in the evidence were not properly brought to the jury's attention. The Court of Criminal Appeal had already considered and rejected these grounds.

The legal issues the Court had to decide were whether the interests of justice required the grant of special leave and whether the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to refuse an extension of time was correct. The High Court examined the arguments made by the applicant and found that they had already been considered and rejected by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The Court concluded that the interests of justice did not require the grant of special leave. The High Court found that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal were without merit, and the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision to refuse an extension of time was correct. The Court dismissed the application and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

Orders