R v Wilson

[2012] HCATrans 68

[2012] HCATrans 068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M161 of 2011

B e t w e e n -

THE QUEEN

Applicant

and

MICHAEL WILSON

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 9 MARCH 2012, AT 11.39 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR T. GYORFFY, SC:   If it please your Honours, I appear with my learned friend, MS E.H. RUDDLE, for the applicant.  (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic))

MR C.B. BOYCE:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR L.C. CARTER, for the respondent.  (instructed by Victoria Legal Aid (Criminal Law Section))

HAYNE J:   Yes, Mr Boyce.  Counsel, we would be assisted by first considering whether this case should not simply stand out of the list to await judgment in the matter of Getachew that was argued yesterday.  May I say to you that, speaking only for myself, it would seem that judgment in Getachew is something that is likely to affect the outcome of this matter both as to whether there should be a grant of leave and, if there were to be a grant of leave, whether part or all of this application should be dealt with instanter.  But to argue it now or to consider the grant of leave without the Court having decided and published reasons in the matter of Getachew, at least at first blush, appears not to be a productive use of the Court’s time.  What do you say, Mr Gyorffy?

MR GYORFFY:   I agree, your Honour.  I have put to my learned friends one other possibility which they do not agree with, I might say, is that it be dealt with on the papers.  We went through the arguments yesterday as well as we could.  The submissions are full.  Once the decision comes down in Getachew, if I understand what your Honour is saying, it will be clear which way this case will go because there is no real distinction between the two, except for the fact that there is evidence here led as to the belief in consent.  But I am mindful of this Court’s time and I do not see any advantage so far as the Crown is concerned in re‑arguing what we put yesterday.

HAYNE J:   Yes.  Mr Boyce, what do you say we should do?

MR BOYCE:   Your Honour, we have no objection to the matter being stood out of the list.  As your Honour indicates, we simply make the observation, if we may, that if it is not inappropriate to do this, to ask the Court to at least have regard to the court below’s decision in this matter in the disposition of Getachew.

HAYNE J:   The application will be stood out of the list generally.  It will be relisted on notice to the parties.  Either side has liberty to apply on giving, shall we say, not less than seven days notice in writing to opposite parties.

MR GYORFFY:   If the Court pleases.

MR BOYCE:   If the Court pleases.

HAYNE J:   The Court will adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 11.42 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED