Telford v The Queen

[2006] HCATrans 268

[2006] HCATrans 268

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Adelaide  No A51 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

DENNIS CRAIG TELFORD

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM ADELAIDE BY VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE

ON FRIDAY, 2 JUNE 2006, AT 10.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR P.R. BREBNER, QC:   May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR T.J. HEFFERNAN, for the respondent.  (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (South Australia))

HAYNE J:   Yes.  Mr Brebner, you may be aware of the fact that the applicant telephoned the Deputy Registrar to ask that his leave application be adjourned to the August sittings of the Court in Adelaide.  The Deputy Registrar told him that the matter would remain in the list today and that if he wished to apply for an adjournment he should arrange to be represented either in Adelaide or here in Melbourne.  He told the Deputy Registrar that that would not be possible.  Following that, he then sent a facsimile message to the Deputy Registrar which reads as follows:

THE HIGH COURT RE APPEAL LISTED FOR FRIDAY 2 JUNE 2006. 

I REQUEST THAT THE HEARING BE RESCHEDULED OR ADJOURNED UNTIL AUGUST TO ALLOW IT TO BE HEARD IN ADELAIDE. 

MY REASON FOR THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW ME TO ATTEND AS I AM REPRESENTING MYSELF AND BELIEVE IT IS IMPORTANT TO DO SO. 

COULD YOU PLEASE CONSIDER MY REQUEST AND ADVISE ME ACCORDINGLY. 

YOURS SINCERELY

D C TELFORD.

The matter stands in the list today.  Treating that as an application for adjournment, do you seek to be heard in respect of that?

MR BREBNER:   No, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   We have of course the written submissions of the applicant.  Yes, thank you, Mr Brebner.

The applicant has asked that this application be taken out of the list and be refixed for hearing in the Adelaide sittings of the Court.  Although the papers in support of the application were prepared by legal practitioners, the applicant now represents himself and wishes to make oral submissions.  The Court has said on a number of occasions that the written papers are the primary means of making submissions in an application for special leave:  see, for example, Muir v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 780, 206 ALR 189. Oral argument is of advantage where the applicant is legally represented and there are particular legal issues that require elucidation. This is not such a case. The application for adjournment is refused.

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him of 14 years imprisonment with a minimum term of 9½ years in respect of a series of charges of dishonesty arising from his admitted misappropriation of more than $22 million from his employer.  The applicant seeks to contend that insufficient significance was given to the fact that he suffered from what the primary judge described as “a pathological gambling disorder which led [the applicant] to gamble heavily on horse racing”.

We are not persuaded that it is arguable that there has been any miscarriage of justice in this matter or that the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in not finding any relevant specific error by the primary judge.  Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive does not, at least in this case, present a question suitable to a grant of special leave.  It is not in the interests of justice, either generally or in this particular case, that there be a grant of special leave.  Special leave accordingly is refused. 

The Court will adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 10.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED