Pinkstone v The Queen - [2003] HCATrans 721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Perth Nos P25 and P30 of 2003

B e t w e e n -
ANTHONY JOHN PINKSTONE
Applicant
and
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Application for bail and expedition of the applications for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM PERTH BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON TUESDAY, 27 MAY 2003, AT 11.00 AM

MR A.J. PINKSTONE appeared in person.

MR K.P. BATES: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia)

HIS HONOUR: Mr Pinkstone, let us get clear the material that you are placing before me. I have read the material that has been placed before me and I must congratulate you on the clarity with which you have expressed your case. Unfortunately it is not always so when people are appearing in person, but your application is very clear and I understand it, I think.

MR PINKSTONE: Thank you very much, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Let us make clear the matters that are on the record so that the transcript will show the matters that you put before me. Can you just identify the matters that you have asked me to take into account in this application?

MR PINKSTONE: Yes, your Honour, there are two housekeeping matters I would like to attend to first, your Honour, prior to commencement. First, I seek leave from the Court to join my application for special leave to appeal P30 of 2003, which is the appeal against sentence, to my previous special leave application, P25 of 2003, which is the appeal against conviction, for the purpose of the application before this Court today.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, you are wanting to raise in your special leave application now a matter concerning your sentence and you had not originally relied upon that ground, but you want to add it to the grounds that you are seeking. Is that correct?

MR PINKSTONE: Your Honour, when I originally filed my special leave application, P25, I was under the impression that the matter was joined in the Court of Criminal Appeal, the court below, conviction and sentence were both heard together. I tried to have them separated. So when I came before this Court I was under the impression that the whole matter, sentence and conviction, would be dealt with on one application.

I have now been informed by Ms Harris, the Deputy Registrar of the High Court, that was incorrect and that the applications must be filed on separate applications to the Court. So, therefore, I had to re-file the appeal against sentence which I did and actually added grounds to that and submitted an affidavit in support of an application for special leave and an order to dispense with High Court Order 69A subrule 3(1). I was around about a week out of time because the misunderstanding on filings.

HIS HONOUR:

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 Pinkstone v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pinkstone v The Queen [2003] HCATrans 721
Case: [2003] HCATrans 721
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pinkstone (the applicant) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Court of Criminal Appeal). The applicant had been convicted of a criminal offence and sought to challenge that conviction.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the applicant had established an arguable case of error in the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal, which would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. This involved an assessment of whether the grounds of appeal raised by the applicant had sufficient merit to justify a full hearing.

Kirby J, in chambers, considered the application. His Honour's role was to determine if there was a reasonably arguable point of law or a significant question of public importance that justified the High Court intervening. Without specific details of the grounds of appeal or the Court of Criminal Appeal's decision, the precise legal principles applied cannot be detailed, but the overarching principle is the High Court's limited jurisdiction to grant special leave, requiring a demonstration of an arguable error of law or a matter of broader public interest.

Special leave to appeal was refused.

Orders