Monis v Regina; Droudis v Regina [2011] HCATrans 76

[2011] HCATrans 76

[2011] HCATrans 076

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S62 of 2011

B e t w e e n -

MAN HARON MONIS

Applicant

and

REGINA

Respondent

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S107 of 2011

B e t w e e n -

AMIRAH DROUDIS

Applicant

and

REGINA

Respondent

Summonses for Expedition

BELL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 25 MARCH 2011, AT 2.15 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR G. O’L. REYNOLDS, SC:   May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant, Monis, with my learned friend, MS G.R. RUBAGOTTI.  (instructed by Sydney Defense Lawyers)

MR S.E. GRANT:   May it please the Court, I appear for the applicant, Ms Droudis.  (instructed by Ford Criminal Lawyers)

MR J.V. AGIUS, SC:   May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.G. McHUGH, for the respondent in all the applications before you today.  (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

HER HONOUR:   Yes, Mr Reynolds.

MR REYNOLDS:   Your Honour, my client has filed an application for removal pursuant to section 40 of the Judiciary Act.  That is the background behind two summonses which have been filed on his behalf.  The first was one filed on 18 March of this year, which I hope your Honour has a copy of.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, I do.

MR REYNOLDS:   That is, we hope, the matter which your Honour will be focusing on.  That is an application for expedition of my client’s removal application.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Mr Reynolds, what I had in mind, subject to hearing from the parties, was – bearing in mind that the trial date for this is fixed on 11 April next – standing the matter over, both in your matter and in the matter of Droudis, to 8 April when it could be dealt with in the special leave hearing.  That is on the basis that the application book could be prepared and filed by not later than 2 o’clock on Thursday of next week, 31 March.  That would seem a sensible course and I think might meet the concerns, that I apprehend from the submissions filed on behalf of the respondent, with respect to preservation of the trial date are concerned and your stay application could be dealt with at that time.  Does that seem convenient?

MR REYNOLDS:   Yes, your Honour.  I think – well, my friends can speak for themselves, but I understand that if the matter were expedited to 8 April then they would have no objection to that course.  We have also had some discussions about the preparation of an application book and we were actually talking about next Friday but I do not see any reason why Thursday would not be possible either.

HER HONOUR:   There is a practical issue.  If they are filed by 2.00 pm on Thursday, the books can get to Canberra in time and people have an opportunity to read them.  So that is the practical reason for the proposal, Mr Reynolds, and if that is not going to cause any difficulty that would be what I would have in mind, subject to hearing from the other parties.  But on the face of it, it is a matter that requires expedition, having regard to the trial date.

MR REYNOLDS:   Thank you, your Honour.  So may we assume that if the removal application is expedited to that date then probably all that we need be concerned about on 8 April is the application for removal?

HER HONOUR:   I had in mind making an order for expedition standing the matter over to 8 April for the hearing of the removal application and standing over your application for a stay.  Do you wish to be heard on any of that?

MR REYNOLDS:   No, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Mr Grant, does that meet your convenience?

MR GRANT:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Now, Mr Grant, I think at this stage there is no summary of argument filed in your matter on ‑ ‑ ‑

MR GRANT:   That is so, your Honour, and I have indicated to the Commonwealth that we would adopt, to make this process speedy, Mr Reynolds’ arguments that have been filed on behalf of the applicant so the Crown does not have then to respond to a further set of arguments.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, very well.  Mr Agius.

MR AGIUS:   We do not wish to be heard in opposition to the course proposed by your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   I understand that timetable, namely 2.00 pm next Thursday for the filing of the application book, seems reasonable from your point of view.

MR AGIUS:   Yes, I think so.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR AGIUS:   It will not be a bulky book.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  Now, in relation to the matter of Monis, am I right in thinking section 78B notices were filed in respect of the proceedings when they were in the New South Wales Supreme Court?

MR REYNOLDS:   That is right and we would need ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR:   You would need to ‑ ‑ ‑

MR REYNOLDS:   ‑ ‑ ‑ file them for 8 April.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  That will not cause any difficulty.

MR REYNOLDS:   No.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, very well. 

MR REYNOLDS:   I am sorry, I am corrected by my learned junior that there were 78B notices filed in respect of the matter when it was in the District Court, not the Supreme Court…..that correction, your Honour, what I said before is correct.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, thank you. 

Each of the matters before me is an application for removal pursuant to section 40.  In each instance that application relates to proceedings listed for trial before the District Court on 11 April next.  In the circumstances, it is appropriate that each application be expedited.  I will stand over each application for hearing to Friday, 8 April 2011.  I direct that in each application the application book is to be filed by 2.00 pm on Thursday, 31 March.  I stand over the application filed in the matter of Monis for a stay of the proceedings in the District Court to 8 April.  Equally, I will stand over the like application filed in the matter of Droudis to 8 April.

I do not think it is necessary that I make a direction with respect to the 78B notices.  That will be attended to in each matter.  Yes.  I will adjourn.

AT 2.23 PM THE MATTERS WERE ADJOURNED