Dunstan v The Queen

[2000] FCA 1165

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dunstan v The Queen [2000] FCA 1165

COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN v THE QUEEN

AG 28 of 2000

BURCHETT, WEINBERG AND KENNY JJ
CANBERRA
17 AUGUST 2000

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 28 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN Appellant
AND:	THE QUEEN Respondent
JUDGES:	BURCHETT, WEINBERG AND KENNY JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	17 AUGUST 2000
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be adjourned to the next appeal sittings in Canberra.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

A 28 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

BETWEEN:	COLIN GEORGE DUNSTAN Appellant
AND:	THE QUEEN Respondent

JUDGES:	BURCHETT, WEINBERG AND KENNY JJ
DATE:	17 AUGUST 2000
PLACE:	CANBERRA

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BURCHETT J, delivering the judgment of the COURT:

1. When this matter was called on for hearing, an application of which no prior notice had been received was made for an adjournment.  The basis of the application is that, in the events that have happened, counsel for the appellant is simply unable to present the appeal today, due to lack of time for preparation.  The Director of Public Prosecutions leaves the matter entirely to the Court, without supporting or opposing the application.  The matter is complicated by two circumstances which are certainly not the appellant's fault and which have exacerbated whatever other causes there may have been for the appellant's lack of adequate preparation.

2. Firstly, I made an order designed to ensure that the appellant would be available to confer with counsel a full week before today.  That seemed to me to be important, and one reason why it is important is that, on the peculiar facts of this case and on the contentions of both sides, though those contentions are not the same, the appellant is himself a prime expert.  In the circumstances, it is a matter that should receive prompt and very serious attention that the terms of the order I made were not adequately complied with, and that the appellant was not transferred from Goulburn gaol to the Remand Centre until at least two days later than he should have been.

3. The other factor is that the submissions for the Director of Public Prosecutions were late.  It is true that he had detailed and perhaps difficult submissions from the appellant to analyse and reply to, but nevertheless the fact is that the Director's submissions were late, and that must have exacerbated the problem for the appellant.

4. In all those circumstances, the Court is minded to give the appellant the opportunity of an adjournment on this occasion.  But it should be made very clear, and he should clearly understand, that this case has already undergone considerable delays, and that he cannot expect any further adjournment.  It must be ready to be dealt with on the next occasion, so the preparation by his legal team must get under way immediately.  If there are to be any changes in the argument which has already been filed in considerable detail, that must be done well prior to the new date of the hearing.  Directions will be given about that, and must be complied with.  Those are the reasons of the Court, and for those reasons the matter will be stood over to the next sittings.  

I certify that the preceding four (4) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Court.

Associate:

Dated:  18 August 2000          

Counsel for the Appellant:	Mr C Ryan
Solicitor for the Appellant:	Darryl Perkins, Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr R Refshauge, SC
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of Hearing:	17 August 2000
Date of Judgment:	17 August 2000