Rigney-Hopkins v The Queen [2007] HCATrans 209 (22 May 2007)

Last Updated: 31 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B93 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY GRZEGORZ RIGNEY-HOPKINS

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.25 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. That judgment dismissed the applicant's appeal against his conviction of having dishonestly obtained a chose in action from a Canadian national, Mr Jason Hart. The chose in action alleged was an enforceable claim to a sum of approximately $AUD66,000 deposited in an account in a financial institution in Queensland from an account in a bank in Canada at the direction of Mr Hart. The prosecution case was that the applicant, in dealings over the Internet and otherwise with Mr Hart, assumed the false name of the account holder in Queensland and swindled Mr Hart out of control over his money. The applicant denied that he was the swindler.

After a jury in the District Court of Queensland found the applicant guilty, he was convicted of the offence against s 408C(1)(b) of the Criminal Code of Queensland with which he was charged. The trial judge sentenced him to eighteen months imprisonment, suspended after he had served four months of that sentence. During the custodial part of the sentence, the appeal was heard and determined against the applicant. The Court of Appeal was unanimous, Williams and Keane JJA agreeing with the reasons of Jerrard JA.

The applicant became out of time for an application for special leave to appeal to this Court. However, his time default was cured by order of Callinan J on 6 June 2006. The applicant then filed a written case which we have read. We take into account the importance of the matter for the applicant, he being only 17 years when the offence commenced, turning 18 in the course of it, and the conviction being one for an offence of dishonesty.

Initially, the applicant raised three complaints in his grounds of appeal. These were, in substance, (1) an alleged error in the action of a Justice of the Peace in issuing a search warrant for the police search of documents used to prove the alleged fraud; (2) the suggested absence of evidence led to support the "chose in action"; and (3) the alleged error of the trial judge in failing to grant an adjournment of the trial.

The applicant's summary of argument does not address ground (3). However, the treatment of the adjournment issue by the Court of Appeal is entirely orthodox. On the other two grounds, we are unconvinced that the applicant has shown a reasonable prospect of success in an appeal, were special leave granted. No error is apparent in the reasons of the Court of Appeal. Nor do we consider that any miscarriage of justice has occurred.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, his application falls to be dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules. In our view, the application should be refused. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.28 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED