Seupule v The Queen

[2000] HCATrans 82

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Brisbane  No B39 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

SALEILUA FETOAI SEUPULE

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

KIRBY J
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 10 MARCH 2000, AT 1.24 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   This is an application for special leave to appeal.  The applicant is not present today, nor is there a representative of the Crown.  It is agreed that the matter should proceed on the papers.  The Court has considered the application book and the arguments which have been provided, both by the applicant and by the Crown. 

The applicant raises two essential points.  Neither warrants the grant of special leave to appeal which the applicant seeks. 

The first point is that the applicant suffered an injustice by reason of the lack of an interpreter at the police interview and at his trial.  The applicant did not request an interpreter on those occasions.  He had lived and worked in New Zealand for seven years and in Australia for a further six years before the incident which gave rise to his conviction.  The Court of Appeal, which heard him argue his appeal, did not feel any concern about the applicant’s capacity to communicate in, and to understand, the English language.  This is not, therefore, a case in which there is a risk of injustice that would persuade the Court to grant special leave on that ground.

The second ground concerns the complaint about the failure of the trial judge to direct the jury concerning provocation.  Not only was this “defence” not advanced at the trial by the experienced barrister who there represented the applicant, it was expressly disclaimed.  It was also inconsistent with the facts as the applicant asserted them to be in advancing his real case at the trial which was that he lacked the intent necessary for a conviction of murder.

Neither ground of the application succeeds.  The application is therefore dismissed.  We will direct that a copy of the transcript be sent to the prisoner.

AT 1.27 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED