Crump v The Queen [2009] HCATrans 245 (2 October 2009)

Last Updated: 6 October 2009

[2009] HCATrans 245

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B23 of 2009

B e t w e e n -

RUSSELL STEWART CRUMP

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

FRENCH CJ
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM CANBERRA BY VIDEO LINK TO BRISBANE

ON FRIDAY, 2 OCTOBER 2009, AT 11.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.P. DEVLIN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. BYRNE, of counsel for the applicant. (instructed by Hatzis Lawyers)

MR R.G. MARTIN, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld))

FRENCH CJ: Yes, Mr Devlin.

MR DEVLIN: Your Honours, we do not wish to add anything to our written outline.

FRENCH CJ: The Court has read the written submissions which have been filed on both sides. On that basis, we will not need to call on you, Mr Martin.

In this case the applicant was convicted of the murder of his de facto wife. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland dismissed his appeal against conviction on 28 May 2004. The evidence showed the case against the applicant had been a strong circumstantial case.

The applicant now seeks to raise matters not previously raised, in particular, he contends that the evidence of a number of witnesses concerning his violence towards the deceased over a substantial period of time, including admissions by him, should not have been admitted as relevant to his motive. He seeks to attach significance to items given to the police by the witness Duffy. His account, that is the account of the witness, which included an admission of the murder, was held by the Court of Appeal to be bizarre and implausible. No questions were asked nor directions sought to raise such an issue at the trial.

The applicant also argues that the prosecution should have called the witness Beavan, whose evidence the Court of Appeal held to be irrelevant. The applicant now seeks to connect it with the evidence of the witness Duffy.

The applicant would require an extension of time for the filing of his application. We would not grant that extension. We are not persuaded that the grounds have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave. Special leave would be refused.

The Court will now adjourn briefly to reconstitute.

AT 11.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED