Sarath Lakshman Hettiarachchi v The Queen

[2012] HCASL 5

SARATH LAKSHMAN HETTIARACHCHI
v
THE QUEEN
[2012] HCASL 5
M140/2011

1. The applicant was convicted of two counts of murder.  His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle and Weinberg JJA and Hollingworth AJA) against those convictions was dismissed.  He now seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of the Court of Appeal dismissing his application.

2. The events giving rise to the charges against the applicant occurred in March 2006.  He stood his trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria before King J and a jury in October 2007 and the jury returned its verdict on 5 November 2007.  On 14 December 2007, the applicant was sentenced to 27 years' imprisonment and a non‑parole period of 22 years was fixed.  His application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against conviction and a prosecution appeal against sentence were not heard until 26 October 2009.  On 27 November 2009, that Court published its reasons and made orders dismissing both the application and the prosecution appeal.  Just under two years later, on 17 October 2011, the applicant filed his application for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal against conviction.  He explains the delay in his applying for special leave by reference to his being in prison and not being legally represented.

3. The points which the applicant would seek to argue in this Court were considered by the Court of Appeal.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal.  In particular, we see no reason to doubt the conclusion that the circumstantial case against the applicant "was particularly powerful".  As the Court of Appeal recorded:  the applicant was present at the time of the killings; he had a motive to kill the deceased; he ran away from the scene moments after the deceased were stabbed with blood on his shirt and the blood of one of the deceased on his shoes.  The only other person who could possibly have been the killer was the applicant's estranged wife (the daughter of the deceased) and that possibility, as the Court of Appeal rightly said, was "remote".

4. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no reasonable prospect of success.  It is not in the interests of justice generally or in this particular case that there now be a grant of special leave to appeal.

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

K.M. Hayne
9 February 2012 S.M. Crennan