Tiberije Flora v The Queen - [2014] HCASL 17

TIBERIJE FLORA
v
THE QUEEN
[2014] HCASL 17
M131/2013

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, dismissing the applicant's appeal against conviction and allowing his appeal against sentence.
On 5 December 2011, the applicant was convicted in the County Court of Victoria of one count of intentionally causing injury and one count of rape by digital penetration. He was sentenced to six years and two months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. A single judge of the Court of Appeal (Harper JA) granted the applicant leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence on limited grounds.
On 31 July 2013, the Court of Appeal (Redlich, Weinberg and Coghlan JJA) dismissed the applicant's appeal against conviction but allowed the appeal against sentence, and resentenced the applicant to five years and two months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
The applicant has not advanced any reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. No point of general principle would fall for consideration if special leave to appeal to this Court were granted. To the extent that the applicant wishes to raise new points which rely on evidence not before the courts below, the applicant has not demonstrated that it is in the interests of justice, either generally or in this particular case, that special leave to appeal be granted.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
12 February 2014 S.M. Crennan

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tiberije Flora v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2014] HCASL 17
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tiberije Flora was convicted in the County Court of Victoria of intentionally causing injury and rape by digital penetration, receiving a sentence of six years and two months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. Flora's appeal against his conviction and sentence was partially allowed by a single judge of the Court of Appeal, leading to a resentencing of five years and two months imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. Flora, proceeding without legal representation, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court against the Court of Appeal's orders.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether special leave to appeal should be granted to Flora, considering the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusions, and if any new points raised by Flora could be considered under the interests of justice. The Court had to determine if any points of general principle warranted consideration or if there were any new evidence-based points that could be reviewed.

The Court found that Flora had not provided any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's conclusions. It was also determined that no point of general principle would arise if special leave to appeal were granted. Further, Flora's attempt to raise new points based on evidence not presented to the lower courts did not demonstrate that it was in the interests of justice to grant special leave. Therefore, the Court dismissed Flora's application for special leave to appeal, directing the Registrar to prepare the necessary order.

Orders