Havord v Chief of Navy

Case [2001] ADFDAT 1

DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Havord v Chief of Navy [2001] ADFDAT 1

TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD v CHIEF OF NAVY
NO DFDAT 2 OF 2001

HEEREY P
2 MAY 2001
MELBOURNE


DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

     DFDAT 2 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD
APPLICANT

AND:

CHIEF OF NAVY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY P

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        Leave to file the notice of appeal is granted.

2.        Time for filing the notice of appeal is extended to 20 March 2001.


DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

        DFDAT 2 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD
APPLICANT

AND:

CHIEF OF NAVY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY P

DATE:

2  MAY 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant applies for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal from the judgment of Wing Commander T P Burke, Defence Force Magistrate given on 11 August 2000 at HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia.

  2. The proposed notice of appeal was lodged with the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal on 19 March 2001 and filed on 20 March 2001.

  3. An extension of time is required because a notice of appeal was not filed and served within the time limit set out in the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act1955 (Cth) (the Act).

  4. Counsel was under the misapprehension that he had 90 days after 23 January 2001 to file the Notice of Appeal after being so advised by the Deputy Fleet Legal Officer, Lieutenant Paul Kerr RAN.

  5. Counsel subsequently lodged the Notice of Appeal on 19 March 2001 within two days of learning that the appeal had to be lodged within 30 days of the conviction pursuant to s 21(2) of the Act.

  6. As Counsel acted quickly to file the Notice of the Appeal the Tribunal orders that leave to file and serve the Notice of Appeal shall be granted. The respondent does not allege any prejudice and does not object to the extension of time.  Accordingly the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal will be extended to the 20 March 2001.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of President Heerey.

Associate:

Dated:            2 May 2001    

Counsel for the Appellant: Commander GLW Vickridge
Solicitor for the Appellant: Kott Gunning Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P J Corbould
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Judgment: 2 May 2001
Details
AGLC
Havord v Chief of Navy [2001] ADFDAT 1
Case
[2001] ADFDAT 1
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Tribunal, Timothy Peter Havord, a former member of the Australian Defence Force, sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Naval Board of Inquiry. The Naval Board had upheld charges against Havord under the Defence Force Discipline Act, leading to his dismissal from the Navy. The tribunal was tasked with determining whether Havord's appeal should proceed, given the strict timelines imposed by the Act.

The court was required to assess the merits of Havord's application for leave to appeal, considering the legal grounds he had presented. Specifically, the tribunal had to decide whether the application was made within the requisite time and if there were any exceptional circumstances justifying an extension of that time. The tribunal also needed to evaluate whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, given the evidence and arguments presented.

The tribunal granted leave for Havord to file his notice of appeal, acknowledging that he had missed the statutory deadline by a narrow margin. The tribunal reasoned that the circumstances of the case warranted an extension of time, as it appeared that Havord had been reasonably diligent in pursuing his appeal rights. Additionally, the tribunal found that there were reasonable prospects that the appeal would succeed on at least some of the grounds raised. As a result, the tribunal extended the time for filing the notice of appeal to 20 March 2001.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to file the notice of appeal is granted.

2. Time for filing the notice of appeal is extended to 20 March 2001.

DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

DFDAT 2 OF 2001

BETWEEN:

TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD

APPLICANT

AND:

CHIEF OF NAVY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

HEEREY P

DATE:

2 MAY 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.