Jol v The Queen

This matter concerns an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Jol, sought to have the hearing date vacated and the matter adjourned due to insufficient preparation by his counsel. The Crown opposed this application.

The legal issues before the Court included whether trial judges are obliged to present the accused's case as a discrete and identifiable entity, the admissibility of in-court identifications following photographic identifications, and whether the rejection of evidence in identification cases constitutes an exercise of discretion governed by ordinary principles. Furthermore, the applicant sought to challenge the correctness of the decision in *R v Meredith* and its application.

The High Court indicated it was not disposed to grant the adjournment at that stage but would reconsider if, after hearing the argument, it appeared that the applicant might be disadvantaged. The Court acknowledged the applicant's concern that proceeding without adequate preparation could lead to an adverse reflection on the administration of justice. The applicant was convicted on three counts of armed robbery, motor vehicle theft, and breaking and entering, with the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal having previously rejected his appeal against these convictions.