Lappas v The Queen

[2003] HCATrans 513

[2003] HCATrans 513

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Registry  No C12 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

SIMON LAPPAS

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for expedition

HEYDON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 9 DECEMBER 2003, AT 9.01 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR C.M. EVERSON:   May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant.  (instructed by Saunders and Company)

MR R.J.H. MAIDMENT, SC:   If it please your Honour, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth))

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Everson, you move in support of a summons filed on 25 November 2003 on an affidavit of Jennifer Louise Saunders of the 20^th?

MR EVERSON:   I do, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   You have no objection to that?

MR MAIDMENT:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Do you support this application for expedition?

MR MAIDMENT:   We certainly do not oppose it, your Honour, and, to the extent that it is in the interests of justice for somebody not to have a prospect of being returned to gaol hanging over their head for any longer than necessary, we support it.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  I do not think I need trouble you, Mr Everson.

MR EVERSON:   If your Honour please.

HIS HONOUR: On 13 December 2002 the applicant was convicted by a jury sitting in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory of an offence against section 78(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). In some of the papers which have been filed it is described as an espionage offence. He also pleaded guilty to related and similar offences. On 30 January 2003 Mr Justice Gray sentenced him to sentences totalling 12 months imprisonment but suspended the sentences on the applicant entering a recognisance in the sum of $2,000 to be of good behaviour for two years.

On 14 February 2003 the Director of Public Prosecutions filed an appeal.  On 31 October 2003 the Court of Appeal of the Australian Capital Territory allowed the appeal and sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for two years on count 1 and six months on count 2 on terms that he be released after serving six months imprisonment and entering a recognisance on condition that he be of good behaviour for 18 months.

On 5 November 2003 the applicant filed an application for special leave to appeal to this Court against those sentences.  On the same day Chief Justice Higgins granted bail on conditions, one of which was that the applicant take all reasonable steps to expedite the hearing of the application for special leave to appeal.  To that end, on 25 November 2003 the applicant filed a summons seeking an order for expedition.

It is not necessary to say more about the special leave application than that it is not manifestly unarguable.  Among the reasons why Mr Justice Gray imposed the sentence he did are that the applicant has been under psychiatric treatment and that Mr Justice Gray thought it should be continued. 

The respondent does not oppose the grant of an order of expedition.  In my opinion the stand of the parties, one of whom seeks expedition and the other of whom does not oppose it, is soundly based.  It is undesirable that the application for special leave remain undetermined for a long period and it is important that the applicant’s future be decided sooner rather than later.  The probable date for the hearing will be the next date when Canberra special leave applications are heard, namely 12 March 2004.  The parties should stay in touch with the Registry in that regard.

Accordingly, I order that the hearing of the applicant’s application for special leave to appeal filed on 5 November 2003 be expedited.  I certify that this was a proper matter for the attendance of counsel in Chambers.

Is there any other order that should be made?

MR MAIDMENT:   No, your Honour, not that we can think of.

MR EVERSON:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   The process by which the respondent responds to the applicant’s submissions can – I mean, there is a reasonable amount of time in which that can be done without any need for any special order.

MR MAIDMENT:   Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Court will adjourn.

AT 9.05 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED