Lloyd v The Queen - [1994] HCATrans 412

-11,. -;.

-- -- - --
-

................ ~ ----
---

ib'

TRANSCRIPT

Western Australia

--- Level 4
---
Law Courts Building

.... - .... 1 Victoria Avenue
Perth WA 6000

OF PROCEEDINGS ·~--

AUSCRIPT GPO Box 9955
Perth WA 6001
Phone (09) 268 7300
Fax (09) 221 4357
IDGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
TOOHEY J
No P18 of 1993
ANTHONY JAMES LLOYD
and
THE QUEEN

loyeen 2.8.94 1
PERTH
10.17 Al\1, TUESDAY, 2 AUGUST 1994

HIS HONOUR: Mr Lloyd, you appear in person, do you.

:rvtR A.J. LLOYD: Yes, sir, I am.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Mr Hope?

:rvtR A.N. HOPE: If it please your Honour, I appear to represent the
respondent.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Lloyd?

:rvtR LLOYD: Thank you, sir. Sir, I'm here to present this application
for a stay as a result of a chamber summons which I filed with the quashed. I lodged an application for special leave to appeal against that order within the required time and I filed the application books as required and I am awaiting a listing. The District Court where the trial was ordered has listed the re-trial to commence on 8 August, that's next Monday and when it became apparent that the High Court was not going to hear my special leave application before the date listed for the trial I made an application to the District Court and that application was refused.
registry on 28 June. Unfortunately, sir, the court being in recess it was
impossible to get an earlier listing than today. Sir, the facts of the
situation are that I am subject of an order from the Court of Criminal

HIS HONOUR: It is an application to vacate the dates fixed, do you
mean?
:rvtR LLOYD: Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Although the fixing of the dates by the District
Court took place back in March, did it not?

:rvtR LLOYD: Yes, it did, sir. At the time both the representatives of
the DPP and myself and the court itself anticipated that the special leave
application would be heard before 8 August.

HIS HONOUR: I notice you say that in the papers. What is the basis
for that, Mr Lloyd?

l\1R LLOYD: Sir, I made that known to the judge at the time, and I in
fact opposed the setting of the date on those grounds even though I
conceded that it was likely that it would be heard.

loyeen 2.8.94 2
ms HONOUR: But was any mention made of a likely date for the hearing of the special leave application or the time when it might be heard? I ask you that because I know you say it in the papers, but it seems clear enough that when Jackson J, refused the application to
adjourn, he did later I think in - - -

1'1R LLOYD: On 28 June, sir.

ms HONOUR: On 28 June - - -

1'1R LLOYD: No, sir, I'm sorry that's not right. I must have been
early…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lloyd v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Lloyd v The Queen [1994] HCATrans 412
Case: [1994] HCATrans 412
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Lloyd, an unrepresented applicant, sought a stay of proceedings from the High Court of Australia. He was subject to an order for a re-trial in the District Court, scheduled to commence on 8 August 1994. Mr Lloyd had lodged an application for special leave to appeal against the order for re-trial, but it was unlikely to be heard before the scheduled trial date. He had previously applied to the District Court to vacate the trial date, which was refused.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether it had the jurisdiction to grant a stay of proceedings in the District Court pending the determination of Mr Lloyd's application for special leave to appeal. A related issue concerned the circumstances under which such a stay should be granted, particularly in light of the timing of the special leave application relative to the scheduled re-trial.

The High Court acknowledged its established jurisdiction to grant stays of proceedings in lower courts pending the determination of special leave applications. However, the court noted that the applicant had not provided sufficient information to demonstrate that a stay was warranted in this particular instance. The court highlighted that the applicant had been aware of the re-trial date since March 1994 and had not taken proactive steps to expedite his special leave application, despite opportunities such as video-link hearings. The court also observed that the applicant had made a decision regarding the procedural arrangements for his special leave application which may have impacted its listing.

The High Court made no orders, as the application was not in a form that permitted the court to grant the relief sought.

Orders