Henderson v State of Queensland

[2003] QCA 475

COURT OF APPEAL
DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA

WILSON J

Appeal No 4767 of 2003

JOHN WILLIAM HENDERSON	Appellant/Applicant
and
STATE OF QUEENSLAND	Respondent/Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 31/10/2003
ORDER
1 APPELLANT conducted his own case MR M D HINSON SC (instructed by the Director of Public	ORDER
Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: Mr Henderson, the Court is disposed to allow you an adjournment only until the 17th of November but it will be subject to an order that you pay the costs of these proceedings today, do you understand that?

APPELLANT: Yes, sir.

DAVIES JA: And you will have to be ready to proceed on the
17th of November otherwise we will in fact proceed whether in

fact you have representation or not. Do you understand that?

APPELLANT: Yes, sir. Thank you very much, sir.

DAVIES JA: That will be the order of the Court.

-----

ORDER

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the appeal case of Henderson v State of Queensland, the appellant, John William Henderson, contested a decision made by the lower court. The nature of the dispute involved legal proceedings in Queensland, with Henderson acting as the appellant and the State of Queensland as the respondent. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal before Davies JA, Williams JA, and Wilson J, and was assigned the appeal number 4767 of 2003.

The legal issues before the court primarily concerned the procedural fairness and the right to legal representation during the appeal process. Henderson, who conducted his own case, sought an adjournment for his appeal, and the court needed to determine whether such an adjournment was warranted under the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the appellant's request for an adjournment should be granted, and if so, under what conditions.

The court's reasoning focused on balancing the appellant's right to a fair hearing against the need for the proceedings to proceed efficiently. Davies JA granted Henderson an adjournment until 17 November, contingent on his payment of the costs incurred on that day. The court emphasised that Henderson would need to be prepared to proceed on the specified date, regardless of whether he had legal representation. The court's decision was grounded in the need for orderly and timely resolution of the appeal, while also recognising the appellant's right to a fair hearing.

The final orders of the court mandated that Henderson pay the costs of the proceedings and be ready to proceed on the new date, subject to the terms outlined by the court. The court's decision thus ensured that the appeal process would continue without undue delay, while also addressing the appellant's request for an adjournment in a manner that balanced procedural fairness with the efficiency of the judicial process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established