Robinson v The Queen - [2013] HCASL 101

ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON

THE QUEEN

[2013] HCASL 101
B13/2013

On 13 April 2011, the applicant was convicted in the District Court of Queensland of two counts of the offence under s 26(2)(a) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Cth) ("the Act") of dishonest use of position by an officer of a Commonwealth authority. At the time of the offences, the applicant was a Commissioner of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ("ATSIC"). The case against the applicant was that on two occasions in 2004, he had written a letter on official ATSIC letterhead in which he made certain representations, which he knew to be false, with the intention ultimately of gaining a financial advantage for himself.
The applicant had initially been charged in connection with that conduct under s 26(1) of the Act. At the first trial of those initial charges, the jury was unable to reach a verdict and was discharged. He was convicted at a subsequent trial. On appeal, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Keane and Muir JJA and Fryberg J) set aside his convictions and ordered a retrial[1]. The initial charges were withdrawn, and the applicant was charged with the offences the subject of this application.
[1]R v Robinson [2010] 2 Qd R 446.
The applicant appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal (Margaret McMurdo P and Muir JA and North J), relevantly on the grounds that the trial judge had erred by not ordering that his prosecution for the s 26(2)(a) offences be stayed as an abuse of process; that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services ("ATSIS"), which had entered into an agreement with ATSIC, evidence of which had been put to the jury, was not validly established as a Commonwealth agency; and that, having regard to the evidence, the verdict of the jury was unsafe and unsatisfactory. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed his appeal.
The applicant now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal.
The application is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the order of the Court of Appeal. No question about the validity of establishing ATSIS would fall for decision if special leave to appeal were to be granted. An appeal to this Court would have insufficient prospects of success to warrant a 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.

K.M. Hayne
26 June 2013

S.M. Crennan

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 Robinson 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 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Robinson v The Queen, the applicant, Robert Raymond Lloyd Robinson, sought special leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence for two counts of dishonest use of position by an officer of a Commonwealth authority. Robinson, a former Commissioner of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC), was convicted in the District Court of Queensland for writing letters on official ATSIC letterhead with false representations, intending to gain a financial advantage for himself. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed his appeal, leading to this application to the High Court for special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the court included whether the trial judge erred in not staying the prosecution for the offences under s 26(2)(a) of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 as an abuse of process, the validity of the establishment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Services (ATSIS) as a Commonwealth agency, and the safety and satisfaction of the jury's verdict. The applicant also sought an order dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in rule 41.02.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 due to the late application.

The High Court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's order. The court determined that the issue of ATSIS's validity would not arise if special leave were granted, and that an appeal to the High Court had insufficient prospects of success to warrant such leave. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application, as per rule 41.10.5.

Orders