R v Clune No. Sccrm-98-96 Judgment No. S6722

The applicant in this matter seeks leave to appeal against their conviction for armed robbery and related offences. The application was initially considered by Prior J, who granted leave to appeal on specific grounds and denied it on others. The applicant then sought a determination by the Full Court, which was heard by Doyle CJ, Williams and Bleby JJ. The central issue before the Full Court was whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal against their conviction, particularly concerning the trial judge's findings on the voir dire.

The court was tasked with evaluating whether the challenges to the trial judge's findings had a realistic prospect of success. The Full Court emphasised the advantages of the trial judge, who was best positioned to assess the evidence presented. The judges concluded that the nature of the challenges did not present a realistic chance of success, given the trial judge's assessment of the evidence and the legal standards applied.

Consequently, the Full Court ruled that leave to appeal should be refused on the grounds presented by the applicant. The court recognised the trial judge's role in evaluating the evidence and the challenges raised, ultimately finding that the grounds for appeal did not warrant further review. The Full Court's decision highlighted the importance of respecting the trial judge's assessment in the context of criminal appeals, especially when the challenges do not significantly undermine the conviction.

The court's final order was that leave to appeal against the conviction on the specified grounds be refused, maintaining the original conviction and sentence as determined by the trial judge.