Robinson v The Queen

[2013] HCASL 101

ROBERT RAYMOND LLOYD ROBINSON

v

THE QUEEN

[2013] HCASL 101
B13/2013

1. 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.

2. 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  The initial charges were withdrawn, and the applicant was charged with the offences the subject of this application.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.

3. 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.

4. The applicant now applies to this Court for special leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal dismissing his appeal.

5. 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.

6. As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10.

7. 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.

8. 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