Hayden v Her Majesty's Attorney-General in and for the State of NSW

The applicant, Mr Hayden, sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the applicant's conviction for contempt of court and the imposition of a six-month custodial sentence. The Attorney-General for New South Wales was the respondent.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the Court of Appeal had jurisdiction to deal with the contempt charge, given the specific provisions of the *Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act 1970* (NSW), and whether there were special circumstances warranting the grant of special leave to appeal, particularly in light of the applicant's impending service of a substantial portion of his sentence. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had erred by not following the statutory procedure for referring contempt matters to the Supreme Court and that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The applicant contended that the *Local Courts (Civil Claims) Act* provided a comprehensive code for dealing with contempt, requiring matters to be referred to the Supreme Court for determination, which had not occurred. He further argued that the sentence of six months for contempt before a registrar was excessive and that special circumstances existed for granting special leave. These circumstances included the fact that the applicant would have served a significant portion of his sentence by the time any appeal could be heard, rendering the appeal largely academic. The applicant drew parallels with cases like *Chamberlain*, *Chew*, and *Robinson*, arguing that the expiration of a substantial part of a custodial sentence could constitute exceptional circumstances, even in the context of jury trials, and that this principle should apply here, especially as the contempt was not a jury verdict.

The High Court considered the applicant's submissions regarding the potential lack of jurisdiction in the Court of Appeal and the argument that a substantial part of the sentence would be served before the appeal could be heard. The Court acknowledged that the applicant's situation differed from jury trial cases, but it remained to be determined whether these factors constituted "exceptional circumstances" for the grant of special leave, particularly as the application for special leave itself was scheduled to be heard relatively soon.