Kiparoglou v Fantinel

This matter concerns an application for leave to appeal by Mr Kiparoglou against a decision of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The dispute arose from an application for a private intervention order made by Mr Kiparoglou against a police officer, Mr Fantinel. Mr Kiparoglou sought the intervention order on the basis that it was necessary to protect him from assault and interference with his attempts to defend a separate speeding charge.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Chief Justice erred in dismissing Mr Kiparoglou's application for an intervention order, and consequently, whether leave to appeal that decision should be granted. Specifically, the court considered whether Mr Kiparoglou had demonstrated any arguable error in the Chief Justice's reasoning or decision, as required for an appeal under section 50(4)(a)(ii) of the *Supreme Court Act 1935* (SA).

The Chief Justice had identified a central theme in Mr Kiparoglou's application for the intervention order, which was his belief that the police officers intended to prevent him from obtaining a medical certificate to adjourn the speeding charge trial. This, in turn, was perceived by Mr Kiparoglou as an attempt to prevent him from gathering evidence for his defence. However, the Chief Justice found that Mr Kiparoglou had neither alleged nor demonstrated any arguable error in the reasons or decision that would warrant granting leave to appeal.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.