Craig v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 237 (23 June 2004)

--

Craig v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 237 (23 June 2004)

Last Updated: 5 August 2004

[2004] HCATrans 237

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B12 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

DOUGLAS KEITH CRAIG

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON WEDNESDAY, 23 JUNE 2004, AT 12.37 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D.K. CRAIG appeared in person.

MR M.J. COPLEY: If the Court pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

CALLINAN J: Yes, Mr Craig.

MR CRAIG: Your Honour, much of my oral submission is actually – I have a typed copy out and if I do not make it right through – I am not as articulate as some people here, or as eloquent, and I have an anxiety - so would you like a copy to follow?

CALLINAN J: Would you prefer us to read it? We will read it and then you can add anything you wish to it.

MR CRAIG: Okay, that will be fine, I think, yes. I think that would be preferable.

CALLINAN J: Do you have a copy for Mr Copley, by the way?

MR CRAIG: Yes, there is a couple of copies there and one for yourself.

CALLINAN J: Well, just sit down, Mr Craig, and we will read this.

MR CRAIG: Yes, thank you very much, your Honour. There is one little postscript on the bottom which I will add at the end.

CALLINAN J: Yes. You will be free to add matters if you wish to. Mr Craig, you appreciate that Justice Deane was in the minority in Mickelberg, do you, on that view?

MR CRAIG: I appreciate that, your Honour, but nevertheless he does voice my opinions in that matter.

CALLINAN J: I agreed with his views in a later case, Mr Craig, but I was in the minority too, so the law is the other way.

MR CRAIG: I see, yes. He puts the argument better than I could, so I have chosen to use his words in that case. I am not actually quoting him word for word, you know.

CALLINAN J: I understand.

MR CRAIG: But it is just that he has the ability to put those words better than I would myself, and that is the reason why I have chosen to quote Mr Deane. There were two aspects of particular interest in that. I have highlighted – it seems like I have not brought myself a copy of that. Thank you kindly. No, sorry, the one from Deane. Did you get a copy of that? Paragraph 10 - - -

CALLINAN J: Just before you go on, there is a matter I omitted to mention. Mr Copley, was this application within time?

MR COPLEY: No, your Honour, it was nearly 4½ years out of time.

CALLINAN J: You see, Mr Craig, you – what is your attitude to that, Mr Copley?

MR COPLEY: Well, the respondent opposes the application because it was so late, so far out of time, and also the penalty that was imposed has been well and truly served now.

CALLINAN J: Mr Craig, you appreciate your application for special leave to appeal to this Court is a long way out of time?

MR CRAIG: I appreciate that, your Honour, but you must realise that I have a disability. I have an anxiety disorder and I have depression and I did not have the ability previously to bring this case forward. However, to live within this injustice is a great burden to me, so in the end I was forced to bring it to the Court. In spite of the fact that it is out of time, the injustice is very clear. The fresh evidence is absolute. The crime was never committed. There is another party who has admitted to actually causing the injury that I spent this time in prison for, and there are other consequences to this too, your Honour. I am going to be deported because of this crime in the near future, unless I can get justice, and that means being deported after 44 years to New Zealand, which to me is a foreign country. At my age and in my condition, I will not survive that change.

So although it is out of date and – during the original appeal in this situation I was actually confined to a hospital ward and I was under the influence of psychiatric drugs – experimenting with psychiatric drugs, so I had no part in the original appeal. I had no opportunity to obtain new material or any of that stuff. I was really in a bad way. I think time does not heal some things. To me, this issue should be resolved in spite of the time factor, your Honour, and also I believe it is in the public interest that issues like this where an obvious miscarriage of justice has happened, they should be dealt with, and other countries deal with them. New Zealand deals with it, Britain deals with it. The Birmingham bombers is an example, you know. They do go back. They do right the wrongs, even after a long length of time. So I know what Mr Copley is saying but it does not alter the fact that the injustice still stands, and that is my difficulty.

CALLINAN J: Yes. We need not hear you, Mr Copley.

This is an opposed application out of time for special leave to appeal. The extent to which the application is out of time is some four and a half years, but as we are of the view that the application could not succeed on the merits in any event, it is unnecessary for us to explore the reasons why the application was out of time and whether they would constitute a sufficient basis to allow the application to proceed.

The application relates to a conviction of the offence of grievous bodily harm which was the verdict against the applicant on 2 April 1998. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. His appeal was dismissed. The matters which the applicant sought to agitate there were all matters of fact, as are the matters which he would wish to raise in this Court if leave were granted.

In the Court of Appeal it was said that the case revealed a fairly typical conflict of evidence as to which the jury was free to prefer one version to another. There was evidence sufficient to support the conviction and accordingly, the application must be refused.

AT 12.47 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED