Hunter v The Queen

[1988] HCATrans 138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B64 of 1987

B e t w e e n -

ROBERT ELLWOOD HUNTER

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special

leave to appeal

MASON CJ

WILSON J

Hunter

DAWSON J
TOOHEY J

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 1988, AT 2.46 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BlT8/l/HS 1 30/6/88

MR C. WALL, QC:  If Your Honours please, I appear with

my learned friend, MR T. O'DONNELL, for the

applicant. (instructed by Robertson O'Gorman)

MR P.G. NASE:  May it please the Court, I appear on behalf

of the respondent. (instructed by the Crown

Solicitor of Queensland)

MASON CJ:	Yes, Mr Wall.
MR WALL:	If the Court pleases, we read the application

for special leave to appeal, the affidavit of

Bruce William Johnston in support of it, and the

notice of appeal.	Your Honours, the applicant was
convicted - - -

MR NASE:  I ask leave at this point to read an affidavit

of counsel who appeared below. I understand that it

is proposed to argue that there was a denial of

natural justice because counsel who appeared for the

applicant below abandoned a number of grounds of

appeal which appear in the notice of appeal and, if
this ground is to be argued, I wish to read the
affidavit of counsel who appeared below for the
applicant. Before doing so, counsel asked me to
inform the Court that before providing the affidavit

he took advice from the President of the Bar

Association. So I formally ask the Court leave to

read and file the affidavit of Shane Edward Herbert

which was sworn on 29 June 1988.

MASON CJ:	In fact it has been filed, has it not?
MR NASE:	Yes, I am not sure whether it was formally filed.
MASON GJ:	I have a copy of it, so it must have been filed.
MR NASE:	It has been filed then.
MASON CJ:	Yes, we have the affidavit.  Yes, Mr Wall.

MR WALL:  Your Honour, the applicant was convicted of

murder upon his fourth trial for that offence,

the fourth trial taking place before

Mr Justice Moynihan of the Supreme Court of

Queensland. He appealed against that conviction upon

the grounds which appear in his notice of appeal

which is at page 51 of the application book. There
were six grounds for his appeal, those being

numbered 1 to 6 on page 51. At the hearing of

appeal before the Court of Criminal Appeal of

Queensland the appeal was allowed, the conviction

for murder was quashed, and a verdict of guilty of
manslaughter was substituted for that conviction,
and a sentence of 20 years imprisonment with hard

labour was imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.

BlT8/2/HS	2	30/6/88
Hunter

As Your Honours are no doubt aware, the

sentence for murder in Queensland is a mandatory

term of imprisonment for life. The sentence for
manslaughter is a maximum term of imprisonment

with hard labour for life, but a lesser period than

life can be imposed on a conviction for manslaughter.

Because of the mandatory nature of the sentence

consequent upon the conviction for the murder, no
submissions were heard on the question of penalty
on the trial before Mr Justice Mo,nihan, and

His Honour, as is apparent from page 49 of the

application book, sentenced the applicant to

imprisonment with hard labour for life.

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not, when they allowed the applicant's appeal to that court, hear any submissions, or ask for any submissions on the question of penalty before they imposed the sentence

of 20 years, which appears from page 61 of the

application book, and that is the first basis of this

appeal, namely that before sentencing the

applicant to a term of imprisonment for the crime
of manslaughter the court should have called for

submissions on behalf of the applicant, as is the

normal case in any criminal proceeding involving

the sentencing of an offender. In fact -

WILSON J:  What is the procedure, Mr Wall. Is the judgment

read of the court, or is it just handed down.? Is

counsel present?

MR WALL:	It is handed down, Your Honour. It is not -
WILSON J:	And counsel are present in court. Was there any

opportunity for counsel for the applicant to have

intervened at that point and sought to make

submissions?

MR WALL:  We understand, Your Honour, that counsel for the

appellant was not present when the judgment of the

Court of Criminal Appeal was given.	Your Honours,
the correct procedure, in our submission, is that

which was followed by the Victorian Court of Criminal

Appeal in the case of KOUTSOURIDIS V REG,

which is reported only, to our knowledge, in (1982)

7 A Crim R 237.

MASON CJ:  We do not seem to have a copy of it. Did you

give the registry a list of the cases on which

you were relying?

MR WALL:  Yes, we did, Your Honour, and we have had copies

made of those cases, if we could hand them up to

Your Honours. Perhaps I could also hand up to

Your Honours a summary of some submissions also

which may be of assistance. We apologize for the inconvenience, Your Honours, but my learned junior

BlT8/3/HS	3	30/6/88
Hunter

and myself only came into the appeal at a fairly

late stage and it was too late to take advantage

of the Court~s photocopying facilities.

MASON CJ:	Yes, Mr Wall.
MR WALL:	Your Honours, Koutsouridis faced a similar fate to

the applicant in this case. He was, at his trial, convicted of murder. He appealed to the Victorian Court of Criminal Appeal and his appeal was allowed on the ground that the trial judge should have

directed the jury on provocation. The Court of

Criminal Appeal of Victoria quashed the conviction
for murder and substituted a conviction for

manslaughter, and having done that at page 242 of the

report - - -

MASON CJ~	He was remanded for sentence.
MR WALL:	Remanded him for sentence until 27 October at

10.30 am so that the Court of Criminal Appeal could
hear submissions from his counsel as to the

appropriate sentence which should be imposed for the

crime of manslaughter, and we submit that that is what

the Court of Criminal Appeal here should have done.

TOOHEY J:  Mr Wall, in putting that submission, as it were,

at the forefront of your argument, are we to take it

that there is no attack on the substituted verdict

of manslaughter - - -

MR WALL:	No.
TOOHEY J:	- - - because this argument presupposes that

the manslaughter verdict stands?

MR WALL:  Yes. No, there is also an attack on that,

Your Honour, but I thought I would deal with perhaps

the simplest point first, and if this were the

only point, then subject to the position of

Mr Justice Vasta, what we submit this Court should

do is remit the matter to the Court of Criminal

Appeal - to quash the sentence of 20 years, remit the
matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal to allow that

court to proceed as the Victorian Court of Criminal

Appeal did in KOUTSOURIDIS. We query whether that

may be the appropriate course, having regard to the

position which Mr Justice Vasta occupied on the

Court of Criminal Appeal, he having been the trial

judge at the second trial of the applicant where the
jury disagreed for the first time, the first trial

being aborted because of adverse publicity.

The CRIMINAL CODE of Queensland provides that

the trial judge should not be a member of the

Court of Criminal Appeal. Strictly speaking that

does not apply to Mr Justice Vasta here, if trial

BlT8/4/HS	4	30/6/88
Hunter

judge means the judge who tried the applicant at the

trial at which he was convicted before he appealed

to the Court of Criminal Appeal. We submit that

as a matter of natural justice, as a matter of
prudence, as a matter of fairness, Mr Justice Vasta
should not have sat on the Court of Criminal Appeal.

No point is taken further than that.

The point which is taken, Your Honours, is that,

present some problems as to which Court of Criminal depending on how Your Honours approach it, it may took the view that - - -

MASON CJ:  ~es, but we can hardly give a direction to the

Court of Criminal Appeal as to how it should constitute itself for the purpose of hearing the

matter.

MR WALL:  True. It raises this question, Your Honour, as

to whether the same Court of Criminal Appeal which

dealt with the appeal, that is the court similarly

constituted, should be the court to sentence the

applicant, if this Court permits the case, or whether

any Court of Criminal Appeal.

TOOHEY J:  Your seem to be running two propositions side by

side there. One goes to the position of

Mr Justice Vasta. The other, if I have understood

you correctly, is that none of the members of the

Court of Criminal Appeal should participate in the

sentencing.

MR WALL:  No, we do not really take the point of

Mr Justice Connolly or Mr Justice Shepherdson, but

because of the way the second trial was conducted,
the allegations made by the Crown at that trial

involving drugs and an involvement of the applicant

in drug running, drug offences, which allegation

was not pressed - - -

MASON CJ:  Mr Wall, if I could interrupt you, all this

leads up to a submission on your part, I suppose,

that it should be sent to the trial judge.

MR WALL:  Yes. The preferable course would be for

sentencing to take place before the trial judge,

rather than the Court of Criminal Appeal.

MASON CJ:	Yes, and that is your submission.
MR WALL:	Yes, and the reasons for that submission are

summarized in the affidavit of Mr Johnston.

MASON CJ:	Right, we seem to be seized of your first point.
MR WALL:	Now, the second point, Your Honours, is in relation

to grounds 2 to 6 of the notice of appeal to the

BlT8/5/HS	5	30/6/88
Hunter

Court of Criminal Appeal at page 51 of the

application book. Grounds 2, 3, 5 and 6 were

not pressed at all at the appeal and the

applicant's case is that he had no part -

he gave no instructions that those grounds ot appeal

be abandoned. The affidavit of Mr Herbert is to

the effect that he considered the grounds

untenable. We disagree with that. He did not seek

instructions from the applicant, he did not argue

them, but he says he did not abandon them, but with

respect to him, that is engaging in semantics.

If one does not press the grounds, if one does not

argue the grounds, one is, in effect, in our

submission, abandoning them.

He says in his affidavit that he commenced to

argue ground 4, but as a result of an intimation during argument from the court he did not pursue

that argument. If that is so, the judgments of the

Court of Criminal Appeal contain no indication

whatsoever that Their Honours considered ground 4.

The judgment of Mr Justice Connolly, with whom

Mr Justice Shepherdson agreed, is a judgment confined

only to the question of provocation and whether that
should have been left to the jury. The judgment of

Mr Justice Vasta at page 66 of the application book says, at about line 8:

The only ground of appeal is that

His Honour erred in so ruling -

that is in refusing to allow the jury to consider

the issue of provocation. Now, if in fact, as the

applicant's counsel at the appeal says,ground 4

was pressed but then, in effec·t, abandoned thereafter

on the intimation of the court, it involves the

questions which this Court recently considered in

the case of. BAILEY V DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.

That case, unfortunately, is not on the list of

authorities, but it is amongst the photocopied cases

handed up to Your Honours.	It is reported in
(1988) 62 ALJR 319, and the effect of it is

summarized in the summary of submissions handed up

to Your Honours, and that is that if the ground was

pressed at the trial then the Court of Criminal

Appeal, in their judgment, should have given some

indication that they, in fact, considered it and

rejected it, but nowhere is it apparent in the

judgments of either Mr Justice Connolly or

Mr Justice Vasta that the fourth ground, if in fact

it was pressed as Mr Herbert says it was, was

in fact considered by the Court of Criminal Appeal

in its deliberations and in its judgment.

In those circumstances BAILEY's case suggests

if that was the only ground - for example, if

ground 1 and ground 4 were the only grounds

argued and there was no complaint about the

BlT8/6/HS	6	30/6/88
Hunter

abandonment of the other grounds, then the matter
should be remitted to the Court of Criminal Appeal

for further consideration of ground 4.

WILSON J:  To what end, Mr Wall? None of these grounds

would justify the Court of Criminal Appeal in

entering an acquittal.

MR WALL:  No, but they would, if they succeeded, Your Honour,

justify the Court of Criminal Appeal - - -

WILSON J:	In ordering a new trial?
MR WALL:	- - - in ordering a new trial, yes.
WILSON J:	So what your client really wants is a fifth trial,

on a charge of murder?

MR WALL:  Well, no. He is satisfied, of course, with the

manslaughter verdict which the Court of Criminal

Appeal has substituted.	No point is taken with
that verdict by the Crown.	What we submit is that

he should have a retrial on the offence of

manslaughter.

WILSON J:	Why manslaughter?
MR WALL:	Because the conviction for murder has been quashed,

and it is not suggested by the Crown that it should

not have been quashed. It is, in a sense -

WILSON J:	Ordinarily, if a person is convicted of murder and he takes an appeal that succeeds on the grounds of
misdirection or non-direction, then the normal
order is an order for a retrial on the indictment
on which he was presented, is not it?
MR WALL:	In this case it is analogous to NEAL V REG.

Neal appealed from a two months sentence imposed

by a magistrate in Cairns against the severity of that sentence and the Court of Criminal Appeal of

Queensland, without any application by the Crown

increased that sentence on Neal's appeal and

the High Court said that should not happen.

WILSON J:	What has that got to do with it?
MR WALL:	This, Your Honour, that no point is taken by

the Crown here that this Court should, if it

accedes to the arguments in relation to grounds 2

to 6, order a retrial on murder. The Crown, as

far as we are aware, is not suggesting that, if the

arguments on those grounds succeed, the applicant

should be retried on murder.

WILSON J:  But the other view is that it is not for the Crown

to suggest anything. You are asking this Court to

BlT8/7/HS	7	30/6/88
Hunter

overturn the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal

and I am suggesting to you that the grounds on which

the appeal were taken to the Court of Criminal Appeal
could not have resulted in any more favourable
conclusion to your client, leaving aside the question

of an entry of verdict for manslaughter, than an

order for a new trial on murder.

MR WALL:  On murder, yes, we concede that, Your Honour. One

of the problems with remitting the matter to the

Court of Criminal Appeal is whether it goes back

before the same - assuming this Court was to take

Your Honour's view and send it back to the Court

of Criminal Appeal - set aside the substituted

manslaughter conviction, restore the murder

conviction, send it back to the Court of Criminal
Appeal to have that court consider grounds 2 to 6.

One problem with that is whether Mr Justice Vasta

should sit on the court, whether it should be the

same court to consider it, or whether it should be

another court of criminal appeal to consider it.

WILSON J:  I do not want you to labour under the

misconception that I am saying anything that

expresses a view that this Court should interfere

with the verdict of manslaughter. I am merely

perhaps - and speaking only for myself - expressing

surprise that you should be taking a course which

would lead, if successful, to a new trial of your

client on a charge of murder.

MR WALL:  We submit that if we are successful, with

respect, any retrial that was to take place should

be limited to manslaughter.

WILSON J:  That is what I had not understood, how you can

say that.

MR WALL: 

Yes, and we submit that that should be the case

because the Court of Criminal Appeal has already
reduced the crime, in effect, to manslaughter and

no point is taken by the Crown that the murder

conviction should be restored.  So, if there was

to be a retrial it should, for those reasons,

be limited to the offence of manslaughter.

MASON CJ: 

I think we have the point for what it is worth.

MR WALL: 

Well, it is worth this, Your Honour, that if

the accused was retried for the·offence of

manslaughter, if his defence of self-defence,

which was the main defence advanced at his trial,
was successful, that would result in a complete

acquittal and he would be that much better off

than he is at the moment, leaving aside the question

of the penalty which was imposed on him. I do not

think I can take it any further, Your Honours.

BlT8/8/HS	8	30/6/88
Hunter

MASON CJ:	No.
MR WALL:	We take issue with the contention of Mr Herbert

that grounds 2, 3, 5 and 6 were untenable. We

submit that arguments of substance could have been
advanced in relation to them and that at any rate

if Mr Herbert was to take the view that they were untenable and that he was not going to press them he should have sought instructions for that course

and, not surprisingly, the point has not arisen in
any other decisions that we have been able to locate.

The case of IRWIN is, to some extent, analogous.

That is reported in (1987) 2 All ER 1085. It is

the nearest, by way of analogy that we can locate,

and the effect of IRWIN, Your Honours, is summarized

on page 3 of the summary of submissions. It is,

in our submission, a fundamental proposition of
the criminal law, leaving aside, but not ignoring,

the civil law. Counsel should not, in our submission,

unilaterally abandon grounds of appeal without

at least seeking instructions.

The English Court of Appeal held in IRWIN's

case that perhaps written instructions should have

been sought before grounds of appeal were argued.

We do not submit that this Court is the appropriate

court to decide, without the benefit of the

3, 4, 5 and 6, because to do so would involve a consideration of the evidence led at the trial.	transcript, the merits or demerits of grounds 2, of substance and grounds which, if argued and if
argued successfully, would have resulted in a
retrial and perhaps - - -

MASON CJ:  Mr Wall, I am rather astonished at the

proposition that these grounds arising from the

alleged failure of counsel to put submissions to

the Court of Criminal Appeal, counsel not having

instructions from the clien4 necessarily give rise

to a question of special leave, that i~ to a matter

of general importance. It cannot be, surely, can it,	that every time counsel refrains from putting a point
to the Court of Criminal Appeal without instructions
from his client that the matter thereby and
thereupon becomes a matter warranting the grant of special leave in this Court?

(Continued on page 10)

BlT8/9/HS	9	30/6/88
Hunter

MR WALL: Well, we would submit, with respect, that

it does because it involves a point of general

importance so far as natural justice is concerned

in the application of the criminal law and the

criminal justice system. It involves a point which

if counsel feel that they can with impunity do

what was done in this case, that would have the

effect of seriously interfering with the administration

of criminal justice.	We rely, for those propositions
on MORRIS V REG.

MASON CJ:  But counsel cannot have a duty to present

an untenable point to a Court of Criminal Appeal.

MR WALL: Well, we take issue with counsel's contention

that the points were untenable. If counsel takes the view that the points are untenable, counsel's

obligation, in our submission, is to seek

instructions, advise his client to that effect

and obtain instructions to not press, or to
abandon those grounds. That decision, in our

submission, with respect, should not be taken unilaterally by counsel it being a matter of fundamental importance in this case because grounds

2 to 6, if argued, and if successfully argued,

would have secured the applicant a retrial,

albeit on the question of murder, but nevertheless

a retrial at which he would have had another

opportunity before another jury to advance his

defence of self-defence.

The best that one could hope for from ground 1

is in fact what happened, namely a verdict of

manslaughter. But, we submit that it is a question

of general importance when put in that way, Your Honour,

and that this Gotirt would, with the utmost respect,

do a disservice to the system of criminal law if it

gave countenance to the unilateral abandonment of
grounds of appeal without at least consulting the

appellant. The appellant here, as I am reminded,

and as is apparent from page 50, signed his notice	of appeal. His notice of appeal was not signed by	solicitors on his behalf. It is in that sense
purely his notice of appeal and common sense,
fairness and natural justice, in our submission,
must dictate that at least he be consulted; at least he be asked; at least he be told what is
proposed. If counsel had said to him, "I'm going
to abandon those grounds", he could have objected,
he could have dispensed with counsel. He could have
sought to retain other counsel to argue his appeal who would argue all grounds, which, as we have submitted, in our submission, are grounds of
substance.

Some of the courses perhaps open to this Court,

with the exception of the retrial limited to manslaughter,

are referred to on the last separate page of the

submissions, paragraphs 1 to 4. What we submit at

BIT9/l/JM 10 30/6/88

Hunter

least is that the question of sentence be remitted

to the trial judge; that the question of argument on

grounds 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be remitted to a court of

criminal appeal for consideration
and for argument. If tnat court of criminal
appeal, having heard argument decides there was
no merit in those grounds, well, so be it, the

applicant would consider his position then.

As to whether this Court should give any

intimation in relation to whether Mr Justice Vasta

should sit on the Court of Criminal Appeal which

heard argument on those grounds is a matter for

this Court. What we can indicate is that there does

not appear to be anything in the CRIMINAL CODE of

Queensland which would prohibit another differently constituted court of criminal appeal hearing the

matter. There is nothing which we can see in the

CRIMINAL CODE which would require those grounds to

be argued before the same three judges, namely - - -

MASON CJ: Well, it would be surprising if there was such

a provision because all sorts of exigencies must

arise which prevent a court being constituted

precisely as it was before.

MR WALL:  Yes. Unless there are any other matters on

which we can assist Your Honour, those are our

submissions.

MASON CJ : Yes, thank you, Mr Wall. Mr Nase, yiha.t do you say about the

matter that was argued, the sentence matter?

MR NASE:  The sentence matter. Perhaps if I hand up

my outline of submissions.

MASON CJ: Yes.

MR NASE:  I am in a position to give the Court some

assistance on that aspect.

MASON CJ: Yes.
MR NASE:	I can assist the Court in relation to the

sentence point. Mr Herbert has confirmed, in

conversation, that he made no submissions on
sentence and Mr Pratt, who appeared for the

Crown before the Court of Criminal Appea~ has

the same recollection. Mr Herbert told me that

he does have some recollection that he asked the

Court of Criminal Appeal to remit the question of sentence to the trial judge if, as a result of

the appeal, the Court of Criminal Appeal

substituted a conviction for manslaughter for that

of murder. Mr Pratt has no memory of that, but

he does not take any issue with it as a correct

statement.

BIT9/2/JM	30/6/88
Hunter
:MASON CJ:	When you say Mr Herbert has some recollection

of it, does he -

MR NASE:  Yes, he told me he has that recollection.

:MASON CJ: There is no doubt that he has that recollection?

MR NASE:  Yes. Now, those are accepted by the Crown

as counsel's recollections. To some extent

one feels in a quandary. In the outline of

submissions the point was made that the difficulty

is not with legal principle, because clearly there

is a right to be heard and a deprivation of that

right would lead to intervention by an appellate

court. But the difficulty lies in determining

what occurred before the Court of Criminal Appeal,

it not being possible for counsel, of course, to

interrogate the court and ascertain why, if it

be the case, that no submissions were heard, that

none were heard. One is left with the feeling

that if it was possible to interrogate them,

there may be some emphatic answer.

It is clear, in my submission, that counsel

was not deprived of the opportunity. Both counsel
were before the court at a time when normally one

would make submissions on sentence if it was appropriate.

TOOHEY J:  But is that right, Mr Nase? What was being argued

before the Court of Criminal Appeal was an appeal

against conviction, was it not?

MR NASE:  Yes, it was. But if a question arose as to the

substitution of a conviction for manslaughter then

that would be the time, in the normal course of

events, to make submissions on sentence.

WILSON J: What, in the course of argument on the appeal itself, or after the court delivered its decision

on the appeal?

MR NASE: Well, normally in the course of argument on

argument had been addressed at that point, one	the appeal itself. Although, of course, if no
might expect that the court would reconvene to
hear submissions on sentence.

WILS0N J: And it did not, did it?

MR NASE:  No, it did not, and neither counsel made

submissions on sentence.

DAWSON J: Well, it rather looks as if they did not get

much opportunity, does it not?

MR NASE: Well, it may be that there were some misunderstanding.

It may be that when Mr Herbert told the court, or

submitted to the court that the question of sentence

BIT9/3/JM	12	30/6/88
Hunter

should be remitted to the trial judge, it may be that

the court took that as some indication that counsel

had exhausted his submissions on sentence.

But, I feel somewhat in a quandary as to

what occurred before the Court of Criminal Appeal.

But that is the limit of the assistance - - -

TOOHEY J: Well, it isoot clear to me, Mr Nase, what the

Crown's attitude is towards that ground of appeal.

You say that you accept the applicant had a right

to be heard.

MR NASE:  Yes.

TOOHEY. J: As of course, he did.

MR NASE:	Yes.
TOOHEY J:	Do you accept or challenge the proposition that

in fact he was not given an opportunity to be heard

on sentence?

MR NASE:	No, no.
TOOHEY J:	"No" to which of those alternatives?

MR NASE: Without saying so, I am all but inviting the

Court to act on that ground of appeal.

MASON CJ: And if the Court does act, you would have no

objection to the matter being remitted to the

trial judge on be question of sentence? You

do not offer any objection.

MR NASE:  It is not a matter that I had considered.

DAWSON J: It, after all, would have been appropriate

course for the Court of Criminal Appeal to have

taken.

MR NASE:

Yes, it would still be a course that could follow

if that submission were made to the Court of Criminal

Appeal.

MASON CJ:  Why should we not short circuit it though? There is

no point in remitting it to the Court of Criminal

Appeal if it is going to lead to the matter ultimately

going back to the trial judge.

MR NASE:  Well, it is a matter on which I really do not have

any strong submissions one way or the other.

MASON CJ: Very well, yes.

MR NASE:  It really is a matter within the discretion of this Court. Those are the submissions that I have on

BIT9/4/JM	13	Sf)/6/88
Hunter

sentence. As to the ground relating to counsel,

the submissions are collected in the outline of

argument and the cases - - -

"MASON CJ:  We need not trouble you on the balance of

the appellant's case, Mr Nase.

MR NASE:	Thank you.
"MASON CJ:	Mr Wall, I suppose formally we ought to offer

you the opportunity to reply, notwithstanding

that nothing that Mr Nase has said really runs

against your submission on the first point, that

is,on the matter of sentence.

MR WALL:  Yes. We have no further submissions to make,

Your Honour.

"MASON CJ:  Thank you. The Court will stand the matter over

until 9.30 am	tomorrow morning and announce its
decision then.

MR WALL: Will Your Honours pardon me if I am not here

tomorrow morning?

MASON CJ: Yes. It seems to be a history in the matter

but, of course, we will pardon you, Mr Wall.

MR WALL:	My learned junior will be here, Your Honour.
MASON CJ:	Yes, very well.

AT 3.30 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL FRIDAY, 1 JULY 1988

BIT9/5/JM	14	30/6/88
Hunter