McGrory v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 149
•23 July 2018
Court of Criminal Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: McGrory v R [2018] NSWCCA 149 Hearing dates: 2 July 2018 Date of orders: 23 July 2018 Decision date: 23 July 2018 Before: Simpson AJA; Schmidt J; Button J Decision: Appeal adjourned.
Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against conviction – appeal adjourned – leave to appear sought by solicitor with restricted practising certificate – s 49 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) – leave refused Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Adam Troy McGrory (Applicant)
Crown (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Unrepresented (Applicant)
R: A J Adams (Respondent)
Unrepresented (Applicant)
Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2013/2960882014/500192014/24271 Publication restriction: Nil Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- District Court of NSW
- Jurisdiction:
- Criminal
- Citation:
- ---
- Date of Decision:
- 20 June 2016
- Before:
- Her Honour Judge Wells SC
- File Number(s):
- 2013/296088
2014/50019
2014/24271
Judgment of the court
-
THE COURT: Adam Troy McGrory has appealed against his conviction of multiple counts of sexual offences and other offences of violence. It appears that he has not received a grant of legal aid to prosecute the appeal (although it is not clear whether he has made an application for such a grant). The appeal was listed for hearing on Monday, 2 July 2018.
-
Two tranches of hand-written submissions have been received by the Court of Criminal Appeal Registry on 6 December 2017. On 20 June 2018 a type-written submission was filed in the Registry signed by Mr John Eaton. Mr Eaton has disclosed to the Registrar that he does not have a right of appearance; although he holds a practising certificate, it is restricted, subject to a condition imposed by reason of s 49 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW). The condition requires the holder of such a practising certificate to practise for two years under the supervision of an Australian lawyer. There is no evidence that he has done so.
-
Mr Eaton therefore indicated his intention to seek leave to appear to represent Mr McGrory.
-
On Thursday 28 June 2018 the Registrar wrote to Mr Eaton in the following terms:
“Dear Mr Eaton
Further to past correspondence relating to concerns raised in regards to your Practising Certificate being a ‘Supervised’ certificate – the Court requires you to provide evidence of your eligibility to appear for Mr McGrory at the hearing on Monday.
In particular – confirmation of your admission as a lawyer, a copy of your practising certificate and, being on a supervised certificate, evidence of who is supervising you and their eligibility to do so.
Please attend to this urgently – today.”
The Registrar gave an email address for reply.
-
No reply was received from Mr Eaton until the week-end. A reply, dated Saturday 30 June at 2.29 pm, was in the following terms:
“Dear Registrar Galanis,
Please do excuse the delay in my reply, as I have been in RPA Hospital (and have certificates to prove so).
With regards to your original email, please do note the following:-
1. I do indeed have a current practising certificate and shall provide such evidence on the day of the hearing;
2. I was admitted in 2006, but am still on a ‘supervised’ certificate. This is purely an administrative oversight on my behalf, which I am in the process of addressing;
3. I shall ask the Court for leave to appear for Mr McGrory and explain that I am on a condition 2 restriction. The Court shall them (sic) be entitled to make an appropriate decision as to whether I can represent the Applicant.
4. If I can be of any further assistance, please let me knoe (sic) immediately.”
-
On Monday, 2 July Mr Eaton appeared and, as foreshadowed, sought leave to represent Mr McGrory. He did not provide any of the material sought by the Registrar.
-
The Court was satisfied that leave ought to be refused, and took that course. Having regard to the written submissions filed, and the failure of Mr Eaton to provide appropriate documentation, the Court was satisfied that Mr Eaton had not demonstrated a sufficient level of competence to justify departure from the statutory requirement that solicitors who hold practising certificates are required to be supervised for two years in order to gain and establish an appropriate level of competence.
-
The unfortunate result was that, Mr McGrory feeling unable to present his appeal himself, the appeal had to be adjourned.
**********
Decision last updated: 23 July 2018
0
0
1