Gasteau v The Queen P49/1999 [2000] HCATrans 332 (16 June 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Perth No P49 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

PETER PHILLIPE GASTEAU

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J

HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM PERTH BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 16 JUNE 2000, AT 2.07 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: You are appearing for yourself?

MR P.P. GASTEAU: Due to unforeseen circumstances, I must, yes.

MR S.P. PALLARAS, QC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MS J.A. GIRDHAM, for the respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (WA))

McHUGH J: Yes, Mr Gasteau.

MR GASTEAU: Your Honours, the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in that it failed to regard in the sentence imposed to the fact of my mistaken belief that I was in possession of amphetamines valued at $41,000 but, in fact, it was heroin and cocaine valued at $360,000 that I actually possessed.

It was pointed out by my counsel, Mr Greenwood, the case of Thompson and Falconer at paragraph 21 says that amphetamine is generally regarded as a mid-range drug. Therefore, I wonder if the sentencing judge was faced to sentence me on, say, 840 grams of amphetamines valued at $41,000 rather than $360,000 worth of heroin and cocaine, if the outcome ought to be the same.

Your Honours, the Crown suggests that there is a lack of evidence that I would not have carried the drugs had I been aware of their true nature. I am sorry, but the evidence is quite clear. While I believed I was in possession of amphetamines as instructed by the supplier, I denied all knowledge of the packages but when I learned from the police that, in fact, I was in possession of heroin and cocaine, I asked for the third interview and co-operated fully, even to the extent of making a controlled delivery, which the police declined. What more evidence could I possibly provide them with? Also, your Honours, under the fundamental mistake I pleaded guilty as advised by my acting solicitor at that time that the nature of the drugs made no difference.

Your Honours, as to the second point, the Court of Criminal Appeal erred in failing to treat me as a first offender. I was never given the opportunity to prove that I would not reoffend. I did not even get bail, so my character was never tested. The Crown used my own admission to the two previous trips to Perth to destroy my character values, even though there is no evidence to prove this, but fails to give sufficient credit where credit is due, for example, the fact that I did not know exactly what I was carrying or the fact that I co-operated fully or all of the character references that were submitted or my psychiatric illness, et cetera, et cetera.

It seems to be a one-way street only going the Crown's way. Thank you, your Honours. I have nothing further.

McHUGH J: Thank you, Mr Gasteau. The Court need not hear you, Mr Pallaras.

The Court is of a view that this case raises no issue of such legal importance that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal, nor does the Court hold the view that any appeal would have any real prospect of success. That being so, leave to appeal is refused.

The Court will now adjourn to consider the next matter.

AT 2.12 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED