R v Cornwell

[2006] HCATrans 276

[2006] HCATrans 276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  Nos S125 and S126 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

THE QUEEN

Applicant

and

RICHARD BRUCE CORNWELL

Respondent

Summons for expedition

KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 5 JUNE 2006, AT 9.29 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MS W.J. ABRAHAM, QC:   May it please the Court, I appear for the Crown.  (instructed by Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions)

MR T.A. GAME, SC:  If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent with MR S.J. BUCHEN.  (instructed by Ford Criminal Lawyers)

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  I have read the papers and I think this is a matter for expedition, subject to anything that Mr Game wants to say.

MR GAME:   Your Honour, we do not have any objection to expedition.  There is a matter I should draw to your attention which is that grounds 4 and 5 were dealt with adversely to Mr Cornwell and other grounds have not been dealt with.  Ground 5 concerned a submission that the verdict was unsafe.  Mr Cornwell is likely to put on his own application in respect of ground 5.  It is not essential that it be dealt with at the same time but if it were ‑ ‑ ‑

HIS HONOUR:   We are not going to give two bites at the cherry.  There is no way we would do that.  We have to read these things.  We have to do it efficiently.

MR GAME:   No, I agree, your Honour.  One of the dates that was mentioned was 16 June.  It is most improbable that he would be able to put his material on before then.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes.  There is another date in August which is, in a sense, more convenient to you, I suppose, because it is in Sydney.

MR GAME:   Yes, 4 August would – it is also legally aided, so Sydney has attractions for that reason as well.

HIS HONOUR:   Costs would be less, yes.  The only problem is, as I understand it, Mr Van Bommel would be deported from Australia on 4 November.  I just do not see how, even if it is heard on 4 August and special leave is granted – it is very difficult to think that the Court would be able to hear it before 4 November and even more unlikely that it would be decided before 4 November.  I had better hear what Ms Abraham has to say about that.

MS ABRAHAM:   Obviously, we appreciate the difficulties in terms of the timeframe, in any event.  Mr Van Bommel has indicated he is prepared to return, but obviously the longer he is gone, if he does in fact leave the country, the harder it is experience dictates.  So simply we ask for the earliest possible date that is convenient.  I accept – we do not want to break

it into two.  We do not want two applications if my learned friend – if the accused is in fact filing an application, that does give rise to a problem.

HIS HONOUR:   Is there no power under the Evidence Act to take a testimony on a video so that it can be available to the jury in the event that it is needed later?  Is there no power to do that?

MS ABRAHAM:   I did not think there was but we can explore that avenue, obviously.

HIS HONOUR:   One would think that sensibly some contingent arrangement could be made.  I realise this is a criminal matter and it is a serious matter to the accused but some sort of sensible – given that we now have this technology, it should be considered, I think, both by the prosecution and by the accused.

MS ABRAHAM:   Certainly.

HIS HONOUR:   Do you have anything to say about the Sydney date of 4 August?  I think the fact that Mr Game is considering an application for the respondent and that the costs would be much greater if the matter were listed in Melbourne in June and that it might be difficult then to have all matters dealt with, 4 August seems to be the appropriate date.

MS ABRAHAM:   Yes, I accept that there really needs to be one date and if there is going to be a filing of an application for unsafe – it is unlikely that that – 16 June is only a week and a bit away, I accept that that would be unrealistic.

HIS HONOUR:   I am inclined, therefore, to and I will expedite the hearing of this application for special leave.  I list it for hearing in Sydney on 4 August 2006.

It is to be consolidated with any application which is filed for the respondent.  I commend to both parties consideration of a contingent arrangement for the cross‑examination of Mr Wouter Van Bommel before his deportation to the Netherlands from Australia which is said to be likely to occur on 4 November 2006.  I realise that there may be difficulties in doing that because the questions that might be appropriate may not be known until the trial.  However, it is possible that through some common sense some arrangement could be made which would be in the interests of justice.  However the orders that I make are limited to the listing on 4 August 2006

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED