Kevin O'Rafferty v The Queen

KEVIN O'RAFFERTY
v
THE QUEEN
[2015] HCASL 134
C2/2015

The applicant was convicted of one count of sexual intercourse without consent. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory quashed the applicant's conviction and ordered a new trial by determining one ground of the applicant's appeal to that Court. The Court of Appeal did not consider the applicant's other grounds of appeal including a ground which, if determined in the applicant's favour, would have led to the applicant's acquittal. The applicant applied to the Court of Appeal to re-open the appeal to deal with that appeal ground. The Court of Appeal concluded that it could not re-open the appeal in the absence of any explicit jurisdiction to do so.
The applicant applies for special leave to appeal to this Court, and seeks orders allowing the appeal, quashing the order for a new trial and remitting the matter to the Court of Appeal for its determination. The respondent does not dispute that the matter should be remitted to be determined by the Court of Appeal and does not argue against the proposition that such a course is in the interests of justice. Our consideration of the application leads us to conclude that that course is appropriate. However, since the composition of the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory on remitter is a matter for that Court, the order for remittal will not be made in the terms proposed by the respondent.
The applicant requires an enlargement of time for the filing of his application for special leave to appeal to this Court, which we grant under r 4.02 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).
Pursuant to r 41.11.1, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order granting the application for special leave to appeal, treating the appeal as instituted and heard instanter, and ordering that paragraph four of the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory made on 21 August 2014 be set aside and that the matter be remitted to that Court.

S.M. Kiefel
13 August 2015
V.M. Bell
S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kevin O'Rafferty v The Queen involves the applicant, who was convicted of sexual intercourse without consent. The Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had quashed the applicant's conviction and ordered a new trial, but did not consider all grounds of appeal. The applicant sought to have the Court of Appeal re-open the appeal, but it declined to do so, leading to an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court. The applicant sought orders to quash the order for a new trial and to remit the matter to the Court of Appeal for further determination.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to re-open the appeal and consider the remaining grounds of appeal. The Court also considered whether remitting the matter to the Court of Appeal was in the interests of justice, a proposition not contested by the respondent. The High Court concluded that remittal to the Court of Appeal was appropriate, but noted that the composition of the Court of Appeal on remitter was a matter for that Court.

The High Court granted the application for special leave to appeal, treating the appeal as if it had been heard immediately. The Court set aside the order for a new trial and remitted the matter to the Court of Appeal for its determination. This decision allows the remaining grounds of appeal to be considered, potentially leading to the applicant's acquittal if the appeal is successful on those grounds. The High Court also granted an enlargement of time for the filing of the application for special leave to appeal.

In summary, the High Court found that the Court of Appeal's refusal to re-open the appeal was a matter that required further consideration. By granting the application for special leave to appeal and remitting the matter to the Court of Appeal, the High Court ensures that all grounds of appeal are properly considered, thereby upholding the applicant's right to a fair and complete appeal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established