Steven Robert Maddison v The Queen

Steven Robert Maddison
v
The Queen
[2014] HCASL 118
B11/2014

The applicant was charged in the District Court of Queensland on an indictment alleging one count of rape and three counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 who was alleged to be under his care at the time.
The prosecution did not proceed on one of the counts of indecent treatment. The jury at the applicant's trial could not agree on a verdict with respect to the count of rape, found the applicant guilty of one of the remaining counts of indecent treatment and not guilty of the other.
The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland against his conviction alleging that the verdicts returned by the jury were inconsistent.
The Court of Appeal (Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J) dismissed the appeal. The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. His application is made out of time.
Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. An appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
6 August 2014 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Steven Robert Maddison sought to appeal against his conviction for indecent treatment of a child under 16, and his inability to secure a verdict for the charge of rape, to the High Court of Australia. The appeal was made out of time, and the applicant, being unrepresented, had his case assessed under the relevant rules of the High Court. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland had previously dismissed his appeal, finding no inconsistency in the jury's verdicts.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the applicant's application for special leave to appeal should be granted, considering the untimeliness of the application and the lack of representation, and if an appeal to the High Court would have any prospect of success. The Court had to consider the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, as well as the potential merits of the appeal itself.

The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision, and that an appeal to the High Court would not enjoy any prospect of success. The Court held that the applicant's application for special leave to appeal was out of time and did not meet the criteria for consideration. As a result, the Court dismissed the application, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal the order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established