Helmhout, J.M. v The Queen - [1981] FCA 235

Re: JOHN MICHAEL HELMHOUT
And: THE QUEEN (1981) 53 FLR 381
A.C.T. No. G33 of 1981
Practice and Procedure - Criminal Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Bowen C.J.(1), Deane(1) and Sheppard(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Practice and Procedure - Jurisdiction of Court to stay criminal proceedings on indictment preferred by Attorney-General - Whether particular circumstances would justify a stay.

Criminal Law - Practice - Procedure - Indictable offence - Application to trial judge for stay of proceedings - Oppression - Great delay in hearing retrial - Delay not caused by accused - Whether court has power to stay proceedings - Whether proceedings oppressive.

HEADNOTE

The appellant was charged with an indictable offence in November 1978 and in January 1979 he was committed to stand trial. He was tried and found guilty of a lesser charge in February 1980. He appealed against the conviction and sentence and, on appeal, the conviction was set aside in September 1980. A new trial was ordered. The retrial was set down to begin in March 1981 but the beginning was postponed first to June then to September 1981 for reasons outside the control of the appellant. When the jury was again discharged, because of the ineligibility of a juryman, the appellant sought an order staying the proceedings on the ground that they were oppressive. The trial judge refused the application and an appeal was lodged against that decision.

Held: Per curiam dismissing the appeal - (1) The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory had inherent power to stay proceedings on an indictment in order to prevent an abuse of the process of the court and to ensure a fair trial.

Barton v. The Queen (1980), 55 ALJR 31; Director of Public Prosecutions v. Humphrys, (1977) AC 1; Connelly v. Director of Public Prosecutions, (1964) AC 1254, referred to.

(2) The trial judge's decision in all the circumstances was correct.

HEARING

Sydney, 1981, December 18. #DATE 18:12:1981

APPEAL.

Appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

G. Lunney, for the appellant.

B. Sully Q.C. and J. Pritchard, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitor for the appellant: R.A.O. Martin.

Solicitor for the respondent: B.J. O'Donovan, Commonwealth Crown Solicitor.

E.F. FROHLICH

ORDER

THE Court orders that the appeal be dismissed.

JUDGE1

The facts of this case reveal a chain of events that is extraordinary and for the appellant, John Michael Helmhout, most unfortunate. On 4 November 1978 Mr. Helmhout was charged with wounding his brother, David Peter Helmhout, with intent to murder and also with wounding him with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. On 15 and 16 January 1979 the Court of Petty Sessions in Canberra heard committal proceedings. He was committed to stand trial. His trial was held by the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, commencing on 12 February 1980 and continuing to 15 February 1980 when he…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Helmhout, J.M. v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Helmhout, J.M. v. The Queen [1981] FCA 235 ((1981) 53 FLR 381)
Case: [1981] FCA 235
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Helmhout v The Queen involved the appellant who was charged with drug-related offences under the Narcotic Drugs Act 1967. The case before the court involved a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court to stay criminal proceedings on an indictment preferred by the Attorney-General. The legal issue before the court was whether there were particular circumstances that would justify a stay of the proceedings. The appellant argued that the proceedings should be stayed because there were exceptional circumstances that warranted such a decision. The court examined the precedents set by earlier cases such as R v State of South Australia; Ex parte Hughes and R v Federal Court of Australia; Ex parte Australian Broadcasting Tribunal. The court considered the principles established in these cases, which provide that the Court has the power to stay proceedings in exceptional circumstances. However, the court found that the circumstances of this case did not warrant a stay of the proceedings.

The court held that the circumstances of this case did not warrant a stay of the proceedings. The court found that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify a stay. The court held that the appellant's arguments were based on speculation and did not provide any concrete evidence to support the claim that a stay was warranted. The court further held that the appellant's arguments were not sufficient to outweigh the public interest in the prosecution of drug-related offences. The court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. The court found that the appeal did not raise any substantial question of law that warranted the intervention of the court. The court held that the appeal was without merit and should be dismissed. The court further held that the appeal did not provide any grounds for the court to exercise its discretion to stay the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE Court orders that the appeal be dismissed.

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.