Troy Joshua Townley v The Queen

[2014] HCASL 25

TROY JOSHUA TOWNLEY

v

THE QUEEN

[2014] HCASL 25
M139/2013

1. On 1 April 2010, following a trial by jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria, the applicant was convicted of murder.  He was subsequently sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 24 years, with a non-parole period of 19 years.  The applicant's case at trial was that he and Ms Hanna, with whom he was in a relationship, planned to rob the victim; that in pursuit of that plan he struck the victim's head twice with a hammer but then stopped; and that Ms Hanna continued the attack and killed the victim by blows and by stabbing.

2. The applicant sought leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria against conviction on the ground that the verdict was unsafe having regard to the evidence.  The applicant submitted that the evidence of Ms Hanna and another witness was unreliable because the Crown had offered them each an indemnity against prosecution in exchange for their agreement to present evidence. The applicant also sought leave to appeal against sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.  On 1 February 2012 the Court of Appeal (Harper JA) refused both applications.

3. On 8 August 2012 the Court of Appeal (Neave and Redlich JJA) refused an application by the applicant to renew his previous application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.  In respect of the application concerning conviction, made on grounds identical to those advanced before Harper JA, their Honours held that it was not reasonably arguable that any miscarriage of justice arose from the admission of the impugned witnesses' evidence.  Both witnesses were competently cross-examined, and the trial judge gave the jury a strong warning about the reliability of their evidence.  In respect of the application concerning sentence, their Honours held that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to the gravity of the offence.

4. The applicant seeks an extension of time to file his application for special leave to appeal to this Court.  The applicant has not advanced any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal, nor is there any reason to doubt its correctness.  An application for special leave to appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of leave to appeal.  The grant of an extension of time to facilitate the making of the application for special leave would be futile.  The extension should not be granted.

S.M. Kiefel
6 March 2014 P.A. Keane

1. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.