Holdsworth v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 385 (8 October 2004)

--

Holdsworth v The Queen [2004] HCATrans 385 (8 October 2004)

Last Updated: 12 October 2004

[2004] HCATrans 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B83 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

ANTHONY JAMES HOLDSWORTH

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM BRISBANE BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 8 OCTOBER 2004, AT 12.05 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M.J. BYRNE, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Legal Aid Queensland)

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

McHUGH J: Yes, Mr Byrne.

MR BYRNE: An extension of time is required in this matter, your Honours.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR BYRNE: In respect to the issue, it is a narrow one; this is an application based solely upon what is submitted to be a personal miscarriage of justice brought about by a party to give appropriate directions to the jury in the trial of the applicant. The context of that submission is this. The offence occurred or was said to have occurred 10 to 12 years prior to the time of trial. There was no complaint made by the complainant at that time. Thirdly, there was no corroboration; fourthly, there were substantial inconsistencies between the complainant’s version to police and her evidence at trial and finally, there was evidence of another complaint of attempted rape to the complainant’s mother, which the complainant denied.

It is submitted that this case was not unlike Doggett v The Queen, a strong Crown case. However, like the situation in Doggett, the applicant did not receive the benefit of what has been called in subsequent cases, a full Longman direction, specifically a direction that it would be dangerous to convict unless there was careful scrutiny of the complainant’s evidence.

The injustice said to arise then is that not only were the jury not alerted to the danger of so acting, but in relation to the requirement of careful scrutiny of the complainant’s evidence, nowhere did the trial judge tell the jury that the whole purpose of demonstrating inconsistencies in the complainant’s count was to show that she was, and could be considered by them, to be unreliable.

At its highest in the course of her Honour’s summing up, her Honour made reference to “I will just turn briefly to the addresses of counsel”. Her Honour then went on to recount counsel’s submissions and so far as any reference to inconsistencies, they were related to the jury as part of the submissions made by counsel then appearing for the applicant.

Your Honours, whilst it cannot be submitted that it will be always necessary for a trial judge to give directions as to the importance of inconsistencies, this was a case where one such direction in the interests of justice was so required. In the above respect, I relate simply to the case of Davis and Hyland v R, which is part of my authorities, and make the submission that given that case was not one requiring a Longman direction, that this was a fortiori a case in which directions as to reliabilities were required for the jury to properly assess the matter. Those are the submissions unless I can assist further.

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

We are of the opinion that a grant of special leave to appeal would result in an appeal that would have no reasonable prospects of succeeding. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.

AT 12.09 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED