Attorney General for New South Wales v. Tajjour & Anor; Attorney General for New South Wales v. Hawthorne & Anor; Attorney General for New South Wales v. Forster & Anor

[2014] HCATrans 24

Replacement Transcript

[2014] HCATrans 024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S266 of 2013

B e t w e e n -

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES

Applicant

and

SLEIMAN SIMON TAJJOUR

First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S267 of 2013

B e t w e e n -

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES

Applicant

and

JUSTIN HAWTHORNE

First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S268 of 2013

B e t w e e n -

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NEW SOUTH WALES

Applicant

and

CHARLIE MAXWELL FORSTER

First Respondent

STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Second Respondent

Applications for removal

KIEFEL J
BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 14 FEBRUARY 2014, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M.G. SEXTON, SC, Solicitor‑General for the State of New South Wales:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.G. RENWICK, SC, for the applicant and the second respondent in each of those matters.  (instructed by Crown Solicitor (NSW))

MR P.D. LANGE:   Your Honours, I appear on behalf of the first respondents, Tajjour and Hawthorne.  (instructed by Matouk Joyner Solicitors)

KIEFEL J:   I think we are missing the counsel for the first respondent.  You are the instructing solicitor?

MS F. McGOWAN:   Your Honours, I appear for the third defendant, Forster.  (instructed by McGowan Lawyers)

KIEFEL J:   Thank you.  Could you tell me what the position of the third respondent is?  I think that has been the unknown quantity in this.

MS McGOWAN:   Basically, we are agreeing with the plaintiff, the Attorney‑General for New South Wales.

KIEFEL J:   To have the matter removed and not remitted?

MS McGOWAN:   Yes, your Honour.

KIEFEL J:   All right.

MS McGOWAN:   No, remitted.  To have the matter remitted to the High Court.

KIEFEL J:   Removed into the High Court, yes.

MS McGOWAN:   I beg your pardon, your Honour.

KIEFEL J:   That is all right, thank you.  Mr Sexton, how long will this matter take?

MR SEXTON:   It is probably unsafe to just set it down for a day, we would say, your Honour, because there are likely to be quite a number of interventions, So that we would think – but perhaps it would not take the whole of a second day but perhaps a day and a half.

KIEFEL J:   Your position is that there is no basis for this Court considering it to be remitted?

MR SEXTON:   Your Honours have seen our written submissions.  I can go into some further matters if your Honour wants me to.

KIEFEL J:   No, I think that will be sufficient, thank you, Mr Sexton.  Well, Mr Sexton, the position of the Attorney‑General in the proceedings in the Supreme Court following intervention is as named, second defendant, is that correct?

MR SEXTON:   I think that is right, your Honour – yes, we think that is right, your Honour.

KIEFEL J: Pursuant to section 40(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), the whole of the cause pending in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in actions numbers S266, S267 and S268 of 2013 in which the applicant is second defendant, and the first and second respondents are respectively plaintiff and first defendant, be removed into this Court. Is there some urgency attending the matter, Mr Sexton?

MR SEXTON:   I think we can say, your Honour, that the matter is, from our point of view and from my friend’s point of view, could be heard or be ready for hearing reasonably quickly.  We have circulated a draft special case and perhaps – your Honours will see on page 82 of the application book there is three orders there that were sought.  They do not have dates attached to them at the moment – or 2 and 3 ‑ but we could formally serve the draft special case within the next seven days and then the plaintiffs could provide a response and then perhaps it would need to come back for directions.

KIEFEL J:   All right.  The matter could be listed for directions before the duty judge in Sydney when the parties have attended to those matters and the matter would then be listed.

MR SEXTON:   I just wonder about that second date, your Honour.  I do not want to take time, but if we circulate it within seven days what would be a ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL J:   In relation to the timeframe for possible hearing, I think you are probably looking at May.

MR SEXTON:   Yes, I think that is right, your Honour.

KIEFEL J:   So, seven days does not have to be as rigid as that, I do not think. 

MR SEXTON:   But I think my learned friend has just said to me that they can respond within seven days as well because we do not – I do not think there is any real dispute about the special case.

KIEFEL J:   Yes, thank you, Mr Sexton.

MR SEXTON:   So would your Honour be prepared to make those orders?  It is just that we formally circulate the draft within seven days and the respondents respond within another seven days and then we could try and organise ‑ ‑ ‑

KIEFEL J:   Yes, there will be orders in those terms.

MR SEXTON:   Yes.

KIEFEL J:   Thank you, Mr Sexton.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED