Sabastian Booysen v The Queen

[2015] HCASL 59

SABASTIAN BOOYSEN

v

THE QUEEN

[2015] HCASL 59
M130/2014

1. Following a jury trial in the County Court of Victoria (Judge Lawson), the applicant was found guilty of one count of importing a marketable quantity of a border controlled drug, contrary to s 307.2(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). He was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years.

2. The applicant sought leave to appeal the conviction.  The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Priest JA) characterised the application as raising four principal complaints, including that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice due to the prosecution's failure to disclose evidence and to call a material witness.  The Court dismissed the application, finding that the contention that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory was wholly without substance, and that it was not reasonably arguable, on the bases identified by the applicant, that there had been a substantial miscarriage of justice.

3. Pursuant to s 315 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), the applicant elected to have his application for leave to appeal determined by an enlarged bench of the Court of Appeal. The Court (Redlich JA and Almond AJA) agreed that leave to appeal should be refused for the reasons identified by Priest JA, and for additional complementary reasons.

4. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal from the order of the enlarged bench of the Court of Appeal. The grounds upon which he seeks special leave to appeal are substantially identical to those raised in his application for leave to appeal in the courts below. The applicant does not have legal representation. The application therefore falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

5. The applicant requires an enlargement of time within which to lodge this application.  The enlargement of time should be granted, but special leave to appeal should be refused.  The applicant has not demonstrated any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.  An appeal to this Court would enjoy insufficient prospects of success.

6. Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
6 May 2015 S.J. Gageler