Kable v Director of Public Prosecutions for NSW

[1995] HCATrans 324

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S114 of 1995

B e t w e e n -

GREGORY WAYNE KABLE

Appellant

and

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS FOR NEW SOUTH WALES

Respondent

Directions Hearing

McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 13 NOVEMBER 1995, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

SIR M.H. BYERS, QC:   If your Honour pleases, I appear with my learned friend, DR G.D. WOODS, QC, for the plaintiff.  (instructed by Brezniak Neil-Smith & Co)

MR K. MASON, QC, Solicitor-General of the State of New South Wales:   If it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR C.L. LONERGAN, for the respondent.  (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales)

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  The reason the matter is in for mention is really for some directions in relation to legal argument.  It certainly will not be heard this year and I think the probability is that it will be listed in March.  It is a question of written argument being filed, which should be an extensive written argument as opposed to the three page summary, and the question of time constraints.  I think you should go first, Sir Maurice; do you disagree with that?

SIR MAURICE:   No, your Honours.  If your Honour thinks that is appropriate, I would not suggest it is inappropriate.

HIS HONOUR:   No.  How long is the case likely to last?

SIR MAURICE:   With written arguments, if they are extensive, it will probably be over quite quickly.

HIS HONOUR:   But certainly it would finish in its day, I would expect.

SIR MAURICE:   Yes, I would think so.  I do not know what the Solicitor says, your Honour.

MR MASON:   At present count, Victoria and South Australia propose to intervene.  Certainly two days, I think one day might be a bit tight.               Did you say one or two days?

SIR MAURICE:   I thought it would be one day, but then I did not know of any intervention.  It could be in one day, but issues could blow out if some of the separation of judicial power arguments start to come in, as I assume they will.  Well they will; they will be advanced, now that we have it in New South Wales.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Solicitor, how long would you need to reply?  I am sorry, this has got a December date, I had not appreciated that.

SIR MAURICE:   Is it still going to be on in December?

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

MR MASON:   Obviously we can do it within seven days of getting the appellant’s submissions.

HIS HONOUR:   Sir Maurice, what about two weeks from today to file your written submissions?  That is 27 November.

SIR MAURICE:   Yes, I think we can do that, your Honour.  I must say we are a little later than we would normally be, because I have been sick and my learned friend has been sick, but we would be able to do that, I would think.

HIS HONOUR:   Well then, if the appellant files a written argument by 27 November and Mr Mason, if you could file yours by 4 pm on Monday, 4 December, that gives the Court time then to digest it.

MR MASON:   And would that be the date for the interveners to file theirs as well?  I would assume they will be intervening in the same interest as the respondent.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.

SIR MAURICE:   None for the appellant.

HIS HONOUR:   And then, Sir Maurice, if there is to be anything in reply, that should be filed by 4 pm on 6 December, the day before the case opens, which gives you  two days to digest the reply.

SIR MAURICE:   As your Honour pleases.  It might be distinguished more by brevity than learning, in such circumstances, but it is hardly our fault, I think.

HIS HONOUR:   In those circumstances, I will make the following directions:  the appellant to file written submissions by 4 pm on 27 November; the respondent and interveners to file submissions by 4 pm on 4 December and the appellant to file any reply by 4 pm on 6 December.

SIR MAURICE:   As your Honour pleases.

MR MASON:   As the Court pleases.

HIS HONOUR:   And the costs of this mention can be costs in the cause.  Is there anything else?  I would not think with the experienced counsel in this case any further directions need be given in this matter.  Very well, we will adjourn.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED