Conomy v Maden [No 2] - [2015] WASCA 211

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: CONOMY -v- MADEN [No 2] [2015] WASCA 211

CORAM: BUSS JA
MAZZA JA

HEARD: 23 OCTOBER 2015

DELIVERED : 23 OCTOBER 2015

FILE NO/S: CACR 113 of 2015
CACR 114 of 2015

BETWEEN: JERROD JAMES CONOMY
Appellant
AND
CHRISTOPHER MADEN
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MARTINO J
File No  :SJA 1065 of 2014, SJA 1010 of 2015

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Stalking - Violence restraining order - Applications for leave to appeal - Procedure for dealing with applications

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Procedure for dealing with applications explained

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr D Leigh

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Conomy v Maden [2015] WASCA 208

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The purpose of the directions hearing this morning is to enable the court to correct the appellant's misunderstanding of the court's reasons in Conomy v Maden [2015] WASCA 208 and to acknowledge receipt of a written request and submissions from the appellant as to how his applications for leave to appeal should be dealt with procedurally.
In our reasons we stated, amongst other things, that:
(a)ordinarily, this court hears applications for leave to appeal by in‑person litigants on an ex parte basis; and
(b)if the appellant's applications for leave to appeal are heard on an ex parte basis then the appellant will not have to deal with, or respond to, any submissions from the respondent.
The ordinary practice of this court, in hearing applications for leave to appeal by in‑person litigants on an ex parte basis, involves this court hearing from the in‑person litigant in the absence of the other party. Usually, the other party is the State of Western Australia, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (WA), or the WA Police or a police officer, represented by the State Solicitor's Office.
So, in the present case, our reasons indicated that, in accordance with the ordinary practice of this court, if the appellant's applications for leave to appeal were to be heard on an ex parte basis then the appellant, who would be heard, would not have to deal with, or respond to, any submissions from the respondent, who would not be heard, on that occasion.
The appellant's misunderstanding of our reasons is apparent from correspondence, in particular emails, he sent to the court after our reasons were published.
The appellant has made a request, with supporting submissions, in his emails to the effect that 'the decision on leave to appeal' should be 'put off and decided after the appeal hearings'. See the appellant's email of 19 October 2015.
This request is inconsistent with the proposed procedure set out at [19] of our reasons. However, we will give consideration to the appellant's request in the course of deciding, in due course, how the appellant's applications for leave to appeal should be dealt with procedurally.

Details

AGLC: Conomy v Maden [No 2] [2015] WASCA 211
Case: [2015] WASCA 211
Decision Date: 23 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Conomy v Maden [No 2], the appellant, Conomy, sought clarification and direction from the court regarding the procedure for dealing with his applications for leave to appeal. The matter originated from an earlier decision in Conomy v Maden [2015] WASCA 208, where the appellant had been involved in a stalking and violence case and was seeking leave to appeal the decision of the lower court. The present hearing aimed to address the appellant's misunderstanding of the court's earlier reasons and to consider his procedural submissions regarding the handling of his applications.

The central legal issue before the court was to ensure that the appellant understood the procedural steps involved in the application for leave to appeal and to address his request to delay the decision on leave to appeal until after the appeal hearings. The court needed to clarify its earlier reasons and to consider whether the appellant's request for a procedural change was consistent with established practice. The court also had to decide how to proceed with the appellant's applications for leave to appeal in light of his correspondence and submissions.

The court began by addressing the appellant's misunderstanding of its earlier reasons, which stated that applications for leave to appeal by in-person litigants are ordinarily heard on an ex parte basis. This meant that the appellant, if heard ex parte, would not need to respond to submissions from the respondent. The court highlighted that the appellant's request to delay the decision on leave to appeal until after the appeal hearings was inconsistent with the procedure outlined in the earlier decision. However, the court indicated it would consider the appellant's request in due course when determining the procedural approach to his applications.

The court acknowledged receipt of the appellant's written request and submissions and confirmed that it would give them consideration in deciding how to handle the applications for leave to appeal. The court did not make a final determination on the procedural approach at this stage but set the stage for future consideration of the appellant's requests in the context of the overall proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The purpose of the directions hearing this morning is to enable the court to correct the appellant's misunderstanding of the court's reasons in Conomy v Maden [2015] WASCA 208 and to acknowledge receipt of a written request and submissions from the appellant as to how his applications for leave to appeal should be dealt with procedurally. In our reasons we stated, amongst other things, that:(a)ordinarily, this court hears applications for leave to appeal by in‑person litigants on an ex parte basis; and(b)if the appellant's applications for leave to appeal are heard on an ex parte basis then the appellant will not have to deal with, or respond to, any submissions from the respondent. The ordinary practice of this court, in hearing applications for leave to appeal by in‑person litigants on an ex parte basis, involves this court hearing from the in‑person litigant in the absence of the other party. Usually, the other party is the State of Western Australia, represented by the Director of Public Prosecutions (WA), or the WA Police or a police officer, represented by the State Solicitor's Office. So, in the present case, our reasons indicated that, in accordance with the ordinary practice of this court, if the appellant's applications for leave to appeal were to be heard on an ex parte basis then the appellant, who would be heard, would not have to deal with, or respond to, any submissions from the respondent, who would not be heard, on that occasion. The appellant's misunderstanding of our reasons is apparent from correspondence, in particular emails, he sent to the court after our reasons were published. The appellant has made a request, with supporting submissions, in his emails to the effect that 'the decision on leave to appeal' should be 'put off and decided after the appeal hearings'. See the appellant's email of 19 October 2015. This request is inconsistent with the proposed procedure set out at [19] of our reasons. However, we will give consideration to the appellant's request in the course of deciding, in due course, how the appellant's applications for leave to appeal should be dealt with procedurally.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.