Pilkinton v Hatty

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application for special leave to appeal. The applicant, Stuart Hearne Pilkinton, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court. The respondent was Frederick Gordon Hatty, the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Australian Capital Territory, who conducted the proceedings on behalf of the informant.

The High Court was required to determine two principal legal issues. The first concerned the question of intent, specifically whether an honest belief that a course of action was required, and an honest belief that one was not misleading the court, would negate the intent necessary to constitute the offence of attempting to pervert the course of justice. The second issue related to the applicability of the decision in *Davern v Messel* to the circumstances of the case, and whether this rendered the appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court from the judgment of Mr Justice Foster open.

The Director of Public Prosecutions indicated that while they would not oppose the grant of special leave on the issue of intent, they would oppose it on the question of jurisdiction, which related to the applicability of *Davern v Messel*. The court noted that the question of whether a belief needed to be reasonable or merely honest, as discussed in *He Kaw Teh*, might be a matter for ultimate determination, but the primary question on the intent issue was whether the applicant intended to mislead the court. The court indicated it would hear from the applicant's counsel before proceeding further.