The Queen v Albert Mejia (a pseudonym)

THE QUEEN
v
ALBERT MEJIA (A PSEUDONYM)
[2017] HCASL 94
M189/2016

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Kyrou and Kaye JJA, Maxwell P dissenting) allowing the respondent's appeal against conviction before the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne of three counts of rape, seven counts of incest and five counts of indecent act with a child under 16 years of age.
The decision of the Court of Appeal involved the application of established principles to the facts of the case, with the result that the application for special leave does not raise a question of law of general importance. Moreover, although we do not necessarily agree with all of the reasoning of the majority of the Court of Appeal, we are not persuaded that their decision is attended by sufficient doubt to warrant the grant of special leave.
Consistently with the ordinary practice of the Court in applications for special leave in criminal matters, the respondent's application for costs is refused.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
6 April 2017 G.A.A. Nettle

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Albert Mejia involves the applicant seeking special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant, Albert Mejia, had been convicted by the County Court of Victoria at Melbourne on multiple charges including rape, incest, and indecent acts with a child under 16 years of age. The Court of Appeal had allowed the respondent's appeal against Mejia's conviction, leading to the current application for special leave. The Supreme Court of Victoria, with Kyrou and Kaye JJA in majority and Maxwell P dissenting, upheld the appeal, prompting Mejia to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the court were primarily focused on the application of established principles to the facts of the case, and whether the decision of the Court of Appeal warranted the grant of special leave due to sufficient doubt or a question of general legal importance. The court had to determine if the appeal raised a matter of law that warranted intervention by the High Court. The specific issues involved interpreting the relevant legal principles and assessing the sufficiency of the doubts cast on the Court of Appeal's decision.

The court found that the application for special leave did not raise a question of law of general importance, and the decision of the Court of Appeal was not attended by sufficient doubt. Although the court did not necessarily agree with all the reasoning of the majority of the Court of Appeal, it concluded that the decision was not sufficiently flawed to warrant the grant of special leave. The court also noted that the ordinary practice in criminal matters regarding applications for special leave would apply, and accordingly, the respondent's application for costs was refused. The High Court directed the Registrar to prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established