Matthew John Pallett v The Queen Elizabeth Pallett v The Queen

MATTHEW JOHN PALLETT
v
THE QUEEN
ELIZABETH PALLETT
v
THE QUEEN
[2012] HCASL 110
M34/2012
M35/2012

The applicants are husband and wife. Each was found guilty in the County Court of Victoria of one count of cultivating, and one count of possessing, cannabis contrary to the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). No conviction was recorded against either applicant. Each was fined $250 on each count.
Some months after these orders were made, each applicant sought leave to appeal (well out of time) against the orders to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Court of Appeal (Neave and Weinberg JJA and Beach AJA) refused to grant both applicants an extension of time in which to bring their appeals on the basis that the grounds of appeal which each sought to advance were without substance. Each applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court against the orders made by the Court of Appeal.
There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. Neither applicant points to any arguable ground on which this Court would disturb the orders made by the Court of Appeal.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
15 August 2012 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Matthew John Pallett and Elizabeth Pallett, a married couple, were found guilty in the County Court of Victoria of cultivating and possessing cannabis under the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic). Each was fined $250 on each count, but no conviction was recorded against them. After these orders were made, the applicants sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, but their applications were denied. They now seek special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Court of Appeal correctly decided that the grounds of appeal were without substance and whether there were any arguable grounds on which the High Court could disturb the orders made by the Court of Appeal. The applicants needed to demonstrate that the Court of Appeal's decision was incorrect and that there were valid grounds for appeal to the High Court.

The High Court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal. The applicants did not point to any arguable grounds on which the High Court would disturb the orders made by the Court of Appeal. The Court considered that the Court of Appeal had correctly determined that the grounds of appeal were without substance. Consequently, the High Court denied special leave to appeal.

The final orders were that the Registrar of the High Court was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal. This decision was made pursuant to rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established