Karim v The Queen; Magaming v The Queen; Bin Lahaiya v The Queen; Bayu v The Queen; Alomalu v The Queen (No 2)

[2013] NSWCCA 43

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Karim v R; Magaming v R; Bin Lahaiya v R; Bayu v R; Alomalu v R (No 2) [2013] NSWCCA 43
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	28 February 2013
Before:	Bathurst CJ at [1] Allsop P at [1] McClellan CJ at CL at [1] Hall J at [1] Bellew J at [1]
Decision:	The notice of motion filed 22 February 2013 is dismissed.
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - no question of principle
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Mursid Karim (Appellant) Bimbi Yusuf Bin Lahaiya (Appellant) Bayu Bayu (aka Ilham Dahlan) (Appellant) Sakarias Alomalu (Applicant) The Queen (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel: N J Williams SC and J B King (Karim and Lahaiya) J Stratton SC and J Manuell SC (Bayu) K Averre (Magaming and Alomalu) P Neil SC, M G McHugh SC and P M McEniery (Respondent) M Perry QC and H Younan (Amicus Curiae) Solicitors: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Karim and Lahaiya) Purcell Felton Lawyers (Magaming and Alomalu) Heenan & Company Solicitors, Barristers & Conveyancers (Bayu) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2010/402476, 2011/114048, 2011/137027, 2010/340863, 2011/137586
Decision under appeal	Date of Decision: 2011-07-27 00:00:00 Before: Conlon SC DCJ File Number(s): 2010/402476

Judgment

1. THE COURT: Orders were made on 15 February 2013. The Crown seeks orders varying one of the orders made and seeks changes to the reasons in [35] and [36].

1. A change is requested to order 1 to remove the word "intervene" and to replace it with "appear". Presumably this is to avoid any suggestion that the Human Rights Commission was given leave to intervene as a party. It was not. It was permitted to address the Court as an amicus. While the word appear could have been used, we see no need to amend the record of the orders. The Commission was not made a party.

1. Changes are sought to the reasons of Allsop P. It is not appropriate to make those changes. The Commission initially sought to be an intervenor and later satisfied itself with taking the part of an amicus.

1. The Crown initially submitted that the Court had no "jurisdiction" or "power" or "authority" to permit an intervention. That submission was withdrawn, in that the argument moved to dealing with the Commission as an amicus. Certainly, the substance of what Allsop P had understood was that the Crown objected to the Commission intervening or being heard on any basis. The position of the Crown was, with respect, less than pellucid as to whether it consented to the Commission acting as amicus. The Crown may wish to reserve for future cases the question of "jurisdiction" and interventions. Nothing in the reasons prevents that.

1. The notice of motion filed 22 February 2013 is dismissed.

**********

Decision last updated: 28 February 2013