WJW v The Queen

[2006] HCATrans 44

[2006] HCATrans 044

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S390 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

WJW

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 10 FEBRUARY 2006, AT 11.53 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR W.C TERRACINI, SC:   May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR W.P. LOWE, for the applicant.  (instructed by Patricia White & Associates)

MR L.M.B. LAMPRATI, SC:   May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, Mr Terracini.

MR TERRACINI:   Your Honour, we need leave leave under the Rules to file it out of time.

GLEESON CJ:   Is that opposed, Mr Lamprati?

MR LAMPRATI:   No, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, you have that leave.

MR TERRACINI:   Your Honour, in this matter until recently Mr Bellanto, QC, was involved in it.  He is temporarily indisposed as a result of a minor leg operation and we, as a result, appear.  Having reviewed all of the material in his submissions, on which I rely, I regret to say that I cannot advance the matter any further having reviewed the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal.  I regret that I am in that position but the fact is that there has been a very significant review by Justice James of the facts in it which, as it were, close down any argument to suggest the Court of Criminal Appeal has not adequately reviewed it and deals with the imperfections, we would still say, in the learned trial judge’s directions to the jury.

Justice James deals with each and every one of those matters and Mr Bellanto, in my submissions, adequately referred to those in his submissions and unless your Honours require anything further from me, that is it.

GLEESON CJ:   Thank you, Mr Terracini.  We do not need to hear you, Mr Lamprati.

The outcome of the applicant’s trial depended upon the assessment of the uncorroborated testimony of the complainant considered in the light of the whole of the evidence, including that of the applicant.  The Court of Criminal Appeal, which did not have the benefit of seeing any of the witnesses, gave careful consideration to an argument that the verdicts of guilty were unreasonable together with other criticisms in relation to the conduct of the trial.  The reasons given for rejecting the argument of unreasonableness are orthodox and persuasive.  There are insufficient prospects of success of an appeal to warrant a grant of special leave and the application is dismissed.

AT 11.56 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED