Rogers (No 1) v The Queen; Rogers (No 2) v The Queen

These proceedings before the High Court of Australia concerned two applications by Grahame Andrew Rogers, identified as Rogers (No 1) and Rogers (No 2). The applicant was represented by Mr. A.M. Martin, instructed by Hovan & Co, while the Crown was represented by Mrs. Kavanagh. The core of the dispute, as presented, involved difficulties in finalizing and filing necessary documentation for the applications, particularly concerning an alleged error of fact in a judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in Rogers (No 1) and delays in the filing of documents for Rogers (No 2).

The legal issues before the High Court revolved around the procedural steps required for an application for special leave to appeal, the court's power to manage its own process in the face of significant delays and non-compliance with filing requirements, and the applicant's ability to bring a matter before the court despite these procedural hurdles. Specifically, the court was required to consider the reasons for the extensive delays in filing the grounds and submissions for the special leave applications, the effectiveness of the steps taken to rectify these delays, and whether the court should grant further time for the applicant to comply with its procedural rules.

The High Court expressed considerable concern regarding the prolonged inaction and lack of communication from the applicant's solicitors with the Registry. The court noted that the application for special leave was filed in December 1992, and despite repeated attempts by the Registry to contact the solicitor, essential documentation remained unfiled. While counsel was changed on 1 May 1993, the court was provided with no satisfactory explanation for the continued failure to settle the required documents. The court indicated its expectation that such matters should be handled with greater diligence and promptness, highlighting the unusual circumstances of the court having to actively procure the filing of necessary documents.