Timms v The Queen

[1988] HCATrans 261

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Perth No P23 of 1988

B e t w e e n -

RUSSELL ORMONDE TIMMS

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special

leave to appeal

MASON CJ

WILSON J

BRENNAN J

DEANE J

GAUDRON J

Timms

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON FRIDAY, 28 OCTOBER 1988, AT 9.40 AM

(Continued from 27/10/88)

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

PlTl/3./PLC 61 28/10/88

MASON CJ: What I am about to say represents the view of a

majority of the Court in this matter.

The applicant faces a number of formidable

difficulties in this application for special leave

to appeal. It is far from clear that the evidence

upon the basis of which he seeks an order for a

new trial can properly be regarded as fresh evidence.

More important, the defences to which it is said

that evidence relates were not specifically raised

at the trial. The defence, based on section 18

of the STOCK DISEASES (REGULATIONS) ACT 1968 of

Western Australia was first raised in the Court of

Criminal Appeal by the bench. It was there

disclaimed on behalf of the applicant who declined

to rely upon it. The defence based on section 22

of the Code was not specifically raised either at

the trial or in the Court of Criminal Appeal. In
that respect, it should be mentioned that it is a

difficult question whether the section applies to

the facts of this case and this Court ought not

to enter upon it without the benefit of judgments in

the Supreme Court of Western Australia.

In these circumstances, and notwithstanding

the submissions advanced by Mr Miller QC on behalf

of the applicant, we have come to the conclusion

that the interests of the administration of justice

do not warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

The application is therefore refused.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

PlTl/4/PLC	62	28/10/88
Timms