Pantano v The Queen - [1991] HCATrans 288

•

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl19 of 1990
B e t w e e n -
NICHOLAS PANTANO

Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application to remove
solicitor from the record

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON THURSDAY, 10 OCTOBER 1991, AT 10.04 AM

(Continued from 12/9/91)

Pantano(2)

10/10/91

MR s. IRVIN:

Your Honour, I appear for the respondent in

this matter. (instructed by the Director of Public
Prosecutions, New South Wales)

HER HONOUR:	Any appearance for the applicant?
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:	Not as far as I know, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	And Mr Pantano is not present, I take it, no.
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:	No.
HER HONOUR:	I think, Mr Irvin, do you have any objection to

the matter proceeding with only yourself present?

MR IRVIN:

Your Honour, I am quite happy to wait a moment to

see if anybody turns up.

HER HONOUR:

Yes, thank you.

Perhaps we will call the

second matter and we can interpose this matter if
Ms Johnson appears.

MR IRVIN:

Thank you, Your Honour.

AT 10.05 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

UPON RESUMING AT 10.37 AM:

MS L. JOHNSON:

Your Honour, I appear in this matter for

Mr Pantano. Your Honour, I apologize for being
late. It was due to circumstances beyond my
control, not the least of which is that the High
Court Registry is not marked anywhere in the
supreme court and none of the many - - -

HER HONOUR:

It is not part of the supreme court,

Ms Johnson. It has nothing to do with the supreme
court.

MS JOHNSON:

Yes.

What I mean, Your Honour, is that there

is no indications anywhere as to what level it is

on and I actually could not remember it. I
apologize in any case, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR:

Thank you, Ms Johnson.

Ms Johnson and Mr Irvin, on the last occasion

this matter was before the Court, I made certain
directions in consequence of which a letter was
forwarded to Mr Pantano, cl- The Superintendent at

Pantano(2)

10/10/91

Silverwater Prison and a telephone call was then made to the Registry but the conversation was quite
indistinct. It could not be understood. A further
letter was sent to Mr Pantano on 4 October and
nothing further has been heard, including today.
Have you heard anything, perhaps, from - - -?

MS JOHNSON:

No, Your Honour, I have not heard anything at

all.

HER HONOUR:	Mr Irvin?
MR IRVIN:	I certainly have not, Your Honour.
HER HONOUR:	Mr Pantano, having clearly been acquainted with

the matter and the issue, there would seem to be no
reason why an order should not be made as sought,
is there?

MR IRVIN:	As Your Honour pleases.
MS JOHNSON:	I do not oppose that course, Your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Well, it is your order, Ms Johnson. It will be

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 Pantano v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Pantano v The Queen [1991] HCATrans 288
Case: [1991] HCATrans 288
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application by Mr Pantano to remove his solicitor from the record. Mr Pantano was not present, and his legal representative, Ms Johnson, arrived late due to difficulties locating the court registry. Mr Irvin appeared for the respondent, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to proceed with the matter in Mr Pantano's absence and in circumstances where his solicitor sought to be removed from the record. The Court also considered the procedural steps required to ascertain Mr Pantano's wishes regarding his appeal and the potential for an order to be made ex parte.

The Court noted that Mr Pantano had been duly notified of the proceedings and the issue at hand. Given his absence and the lack of any communication from him, and with Ms Johnson not opposing the course of action, the Court indicated that an order could be made as sought. The Court clarified that the application before it was specifically for the removal of the solicitor from the record, and any further action, such as dismissing the appeal for want of prosecution, would require a separate application.

Orders