Whittaker v Turner [2005] HCATrans 210 (21 April 2005)

--

Whittaker v Turner [2005] HCATrans 210 (21 April 2005)

Last Updated: 27 April 2005

[2005] HCATrans 210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B40 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

MARK ALAN WHITTAKER

Applicant

and

GORDON LESLIE TURNER

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

McHUGH J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 21 APRIL 2005, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

McHUGH J: The respondent commenced proceedings in the Magistrates Court against the applicant by way of a complaint sworn and summons issued under the Justices Act 1886. The Magistrates Court convicted the applicant of driving at a speed over the speed limit and ordered the applicant to pay the value of the fine and the costs. The Court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the reading on Senior Constable Hosking's speeding device was reliable, and that the applicant’s vehicle was speeding at the relevant time.

The District Court found that the Magistrate did not err in failing to take relevant facts into account and that the summons was not wrongly issued and so there was no miscarriage of justice for want of prosecution.

The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland refused the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the decision of the District Court on the ground that the summons was not wrongly issued.

The applicant’s special leave application complains that the Court of Appeal made an error of law in refusing to allow the applicant’s applications to amend the grounds of appeal and for leave to appeal. It also complains that the Court of Appeal’s decision to refuse the application for leave to appeal was an unreasonable exercise of the Court’s discretion. This complaint was repeated in the applicant’s summary of argument. However, an appeal has no prospect of success. Furthermore, the application for special leave does not raise a question of law of public importance or any other matter that would justify the grant of special leave.

The application is dismissed.

Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order that the application is dismissed with costs. I publish our joint reasons.

AT 9.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED