R v Hluszanska

[2000] QCA 125
COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
DAVIES JA
THOMAS JA

[R v HLUSZANSKA]

CA No 371 of 1999

THE QUEEN

SLAVA HLUSZANSKA Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/04/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The appellant, Mrs Hluszanska, has sought to appeal to this Court against a judgment of the District Court given on 28 September last year, dismissing an appeal by her against a good behaviour order for 12 months ordered by a Magistrate against her for breach of section 6 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982.

She has come to this Court today seeking what she describes as a stay by which she appears to mean that she wants an adjournment of her appeal on medical grounds. There is, however, in my view, no point in granting any such adjournment. Any such appeal to this Court can be made only by leave of this Court.

When asked by the Chief Justice why she thought the order made by the District Court Judge was wrong Mrs Hluszanska advanced three reasons. The first was that the learned Judge did not have enough experience with the law. The second is that she said he protects criminal people and the third was that his Judgment was against the Australian constitution and when asked why she said that she repeated that he protects criminal people.

There is no substance in any of these grounds and as far as I can see there is no substance in any complaint of the judgment made by the District Court below. I would therefore refuse the adjournment which the appellant seeks or the stay as she describes it and I would dismiss the appeal to this Court.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: Those are the orders which the Court makes.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hluszanska involved an appeal by Mrs Hluszanska against a District Court judgment that had dismissed her appeal against a good behaviour order for a breach of section 6 of the Peace and Good Behaviour Act 1982. Mrs Hluszanska sought a stay, or in other words an adjournment, of her appeal on medical grounds. However, the Court of Appeal was not convinced that there was any merit in granting such an adjournment.

The legal issues that the Court of Appeal had to decide were whether the District Court had made an error in dismissing Mrs Hluszanska's appeal and whether the appeal should be adjourned due to her medical condition. The Court of Appeal found that Mrs Hluszanska's reasons for appealing the District Court's judgment were not valid, and that there was no substance in her complaint. Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused the adjournment sought by Mrs Hluszanska.

The Court of Appeal's reasoning was that Mrs Hluszanska's grounds for appeal were not valid, and that the District Court's judgment was correct. The Court of Appeal also noted that any appeal to the Court of Appeal could only be made with leave, and that Mrs Hluszanska had not provided any valid reasons for her appeal. Therefore, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused the adjournment sought by Mrs Hluszanska.

The final order made by the Court of Appeal was to dismiss the appeal and refuse the adjournment sought by Mrs Hluszanska. The Court of Appeal found that there was no merit in the appeal and that the District Court's judgment was correct. The Court of Appeal also noted that any appeal to the Court of Appeal could only be made with leave, and that Mrs Hluszanska had not provided any valid reasons for her appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established