Kobylski v Queensland Police Service

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
KEANE JA
MULLINS J

CA No 302 of 2006

JAROSLAW KOBYLSKI Appellant/Applicant

and

QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 12/02/2007

ORDER

APPLICANT conducted his own case

MR D MacKENZIE (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland)) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant has asked for an adjournment of his application for an extension of time to apply for leave to appeal from a decision of a District Court Judge hearing appeals under section 222 Justices Act on the basis that he received the respondent's outline of argument only outside Court this morning.

The respondent's outline was filed and served on the 7th of February 2007, just five days after receiving the applicant's outline which was itself filed late. It does not raise any significant new matters which were not argued below. It is unfortunate the applicant did not receive the outline until today but it seems that was no fault of the respondent.

He seeks an adjournment so that he can get advice from someone who is a non-lawyer and requests an adjournment of at least a couple of weeks to do so.

As there seems to be no point in an adjournment in that the matters have all been aired before in the earlier hearing in the District Court, I can see no utility in granting the adjournment sought. I would refuse it.

KEANE JA: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: So the application for an adjournment is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an application from Jaroslaw Kobylski against the Queensland Police Service. Kobylski, the appellant, sought an adjournment for his application to extend the time limit to appeal a decision made by a District Court Judge under section 222 of the Justices Act. The respondent, the Queensland Police Service, filed their outline of argument on 7 February 2007, five days after receiving the appellant's outline, which was also filed late. The appellant claimed that he had only received the respondent's outline on the morning of the court hearing. He sought the adjournment to obtain advice from a non-lawyer and requested at least a couple of weeks for this purpose. The court considered the matter and decided against granting the adjournment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant should be granted an adjournment to allow him to obtain advice from a non-lawyer. The court noted that the matters at hand had already been thoroughly discussed in the earlier hearing in the District Court, and there seemed to be no significant new matters raised by the respondent's outline of argument. Furthermore, it appeared that the delay in receiving the respondent's outline was not due to any fault on the part of the respondent. The court needed to balance the appellant's need for additional time against the interest in efficiently managing court resources and maintaining the integrity of the judicial process.

In their decision, the judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously agreed to refuse the application for an adjournment. They reasoned that, given the limited utility of the adjournment in this case, and because the matters had already been aired in the earlier District Court hearing, there was no compelling reason to grant the requested adjournment. The court emphasised that the delay in receiving the respondent's outline did not appear to be the fault of the respondent. Ultimately, the court concluded that there was no justification for an adjournment in this instance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established