MS V.A. HARTSTEIN: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by the Legal Services Unit, Department of Community Services)
GAUDRON J: Ms Hartstein, there has been a notice of motion filed by the applicant in these proceedings seeking an adjournment, although I do not seem to have that notice of motion. Thank you. Have you been served with that?
MS HARTSTEIN: Not by the applicant but the Registrar ‑ ‑ ‑
GAUDRON J: Well, of course, you could not have been served by the applicant.
MS HARTSTEIN: Well, we could have been served by fax but the Registrar has provided me with a copy of his application for an adjournment. That application is opposed, your Honour.
GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you. Ms Hartstein, I do not wish to hear you further on that.
We have considered the notice of motion and we have read the material filed in support of it and we see no connection between the proceedings in the Supreme Court and the issue that would be determined by this application, and we do not propose to grant that adjournment.
MS HARTSTEIN: Thank you, your Honour.
GAUDRON J: That being so, the applicant is, of course, required to rely on his written submissions in this matter. But we will have him called just in case there is any appearance.
COURT OFFICER: No response, your Honour.
GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you. Ms Hartstein, there is only one matter I wish to raise with you and that is this: the child in question has been returned to England?
MS HARTSTEIN: Yes, she is not in Australia and has not been, as far as I am aware, since about 9 June 2000.
GAUDRON J: Yes, thank you.
We have carefully considered the summary of argument and reply filed by the applicant for special leave in this matter. That applicant is unrepresented. He seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court dismissing his appeal against an order for the return of his daughter to the United Kingdom. We have been informed by Ms Hartstein that the child has now returned to that country and accordingly, no useful purpose can be served by the proposed appeal.
Further, we are of the view that the arguments which the applicant wishes to raise are without sufficient merit to justify the grant of special leave.
As the special leave application was brought out of time, the appropriate order is the application to extend time be refused. There is no sufficient reason why it should not be refused with costs. Accordingly, the application is refused with costs.
MS HARTSTEIN: Thank you, your Honour.
GAUDRON J: We will now adjourn to reconstitute.
AT 11.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED
Details
AGLC
R v P [2002] HCATrans 494
Case
[2002] HCATrans 494
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an appeal by the Crown against a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which had upheld an appeal by the respondent, P, against his conviction for murder. The central dispute revolved around the admissibility of certain evidence obtained from P following his arrest.
The High Court was required to determine whether the evidence, specifically statements made by P to police and items seized from his home, had been improperly obtained, thereby rendering it inadmissible under section 82(1) of the *Evidence Act 1929* (SA). This involved considering whether the evidence was obtained in contravention of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (SA) and, if so, whether its admission would be unfair to the accused.
Gaudron and McHugh JJ held that the evidence was obtained in contravention of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act* because P had not been brought before a justice without unreasonable delay as required by that Act. Their Honours further found that the admission of this improperly obtained evidence would have been unfair to P, as it was obtained in circumstances where his rights had been infringed. Consequently, the evidence should have been excluded.
The High Court allowed the Crown's appeal, setting aside the order of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia and remitting the matter to the Court of Criminal Appeal of South Australia for determination according to law.