Conomy v Maden [No 2]
[2015] WASCA 211
•23 OCTOBER 2015
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.
0