Hoy v The Queen

[2005] HCATrans 229

[2005] HCATrans 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P9 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

AMANDA KAYLENE HOY

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

CALLINAN J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

FROM PERTH BY VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

ON FRIDAY, 22 APRIL 2005, AT 11.58 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR N.D.C. DILLON:   If it please the Court, I appear for the applicant, your Honours.  (instructed by Hammond Worthington)

MR D.DEMPSTER:   If it please the Court, I appear with MR B.E.F. TOOKER, for the respondent.  (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions for Western Australia)

CALLINAN J:   Yes, Mr Dillon, you go ahead. 

MR DILLON:   Your Honours, there are two preliminary applications before the Court this morning.  The first is to adjourn this special leave application. 

CALLINAN J:   Yes, and the other one?

MR DILLON:   The other, your Honour, is for the solicitors presently appearing for the applicant to have leave to withdraw.

CALLINAN J:   And the basis of the application for the adjournment is that the applicant needs to find or wishes to find other legal representation, is that right?

MR DILLON:   That is correct, your Honour.  I can add to that, your Honour, this, that the applicant has already approached a West Australian senior counsel who has agreed to review the papers with a mind to taking the brief to appear for the applicant in the special leave application.

CALLINAN J:   We might hear from your opposition, I think.  Thank you, Mr Dillon.

MR DILLON:   Thank you, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Yes, Mr Dempster.

MR DEMPSTER:   May it please the Court, this matter has a very long history.  There was a deemed abandonment and then a revived interest in the matter pending the outcome of the relatively recent decision of this Court in the matter of Nicholls and Coates.  In the event, that decision was of no assistance to this applicant.  The application is, in effect, to obtain a second opinion on the merits and, to that extent, the application to adjourn is opposed.

CALLINAN J:   I do not know whether it is arguable or not, but there is another point at least, is there not?  There is a suggestion of a corroboration point.

MR DEMPSTER:   There are three other grounds.

CALLINAN J:   Three other grounds.  Well, why would you take the attitude that you do, Mr Dempster?  The applicant is in prison, is she not?

MR DEMPSTER:   Yes, that is correct.  It only has had a very long history, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Well, yes, no doubt, but she is there for a long time, is she not?

MR DEMPSTER:   Indeed.  There are other grounds.  It would be inappropriate for me to comment on the merit of those other grounds.  It is fair to say that the principal ground has, in effect, gone by the board, though, given the Court’s decision in Nicholls and Coates. 

CALLINAN J:   That may be right, but that is a matter that she would wish to argue, perhaps.  Is there anything else you can say?

MR DEMPSTER:   May it please your Honour, we do not see that latter matter is arguable at all.

CALLINAN J:   Well, that is the argument.  Is there anything else you want to raise?

MR DEMPSTER:   Nothing, may it please your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Thank you, Mr Dempster.  Mr Dillon, we are minded to grant the adjournment.  You wish leave to withdraw, is that right?

MR DILLON:   Yes, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Mr Dillon, you need an order that the time for bringing of the application be abridged, is that correct?

MR DILLON:   As I understand it, yes, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Mr Dempster, you could not object to that, is that not right?

MR DEMPSTER:   Yes, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Thank you. 

We would order that the time for bringing the application be abridged and further order that the application for special leave be adjourned to the next hearing of special leave applications from the Perth Registry or at such other time and date as the Registrar may nominate or the Court order. 

Now, Mr Dillon, those forms of orders are satisfactory?

MR DILLON:   Yes, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   And you seek leave to withdraw, is that so?  Forgive me – if some firms are amalgamated in Perth, is it a firm of solicitors that needs leave to withdraw or you personally, or both?

MR DILLON:   Your Honour, I am briefed from the Bar in respect of these two applications.  The firm that needs to withdraw is the solicitors for the applicant, the firm Hammond Worthington, and that is the firm that seeks leave to withdraw from the record.

CALLINAN J:   We would order that they have leave to withdraw.  Nothing further, Mr Dillon.

MR DILLON:   No, thank you, your Honour.

CALLINAN J:   Thank you, Mr Dillon.  Thank you, Mr Dempster.

AT 12.03 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED