Sharples v Attorney-General of Queensland

[2001] QCA 128

[2001] QCA 128

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
WHITE J
DUTNEY J

Appeal No 9413 of 2000

TERRY PATRICK SHARPLES                (Appellant/Applicant)

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND        (Respondent/Respondent)

and

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS AND             (Not party to appeal/
MATTHEW FRANKLIN  Unknown or n/a)

BRISBANE

..DATE 04/04/2001

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: This is an appeal from an interlocutory order made by a Judge of the Trial Division setting aside a subpoena directed to a "Courier-Mail" journalist to produce documents and to disclose the names of the person or persons and material, the source of a news story. The applicant also appeals from the ancillary costs order. The main proceedings between the appellant and the respondent, the Attorney-General of Queensland, are under the Judicial Review Act 1991.

The applicant has been remiss in the timely prosecution of this appeal.  He has consistently failed to meet time-frames provided under the Court of Appeal practice directions.  A large number of extensions to those time-frames have been given by the Registry.  He has consistently failed to meet those extended time-frames. 

As a result the matter was mentioned before me on 9 March 2001.  I made a number of orders for compliance with time-frames and further ordered that in the event of non-compliance the matter was to be listed on the first convenient date before the Court of Appeal so that the appellant could show cause why the appeal should not be struck out for want of prosecution.

The appellant has now given some explanation for his slowness in complying with the most recent time-frames.  It seems that his computer broke down, and an affidavit from a Mr Patrick Wardell supports him on this issue.  He has, therefore, given some explanation for his failure to comply with the Court order on 9 March 2001 and he has now substantially complied with those orders.

The matter is complicated by the fact that the appellant this morning has informed this Court that he has applied for removal of this appeal to the High Court, where he proposes to argue that the primary judge and the Judges of the Court of Appeal have not been validly appointed.  Because of that application for removal it now seems that this Court should not progress the appeal until the determination of the High Court application.

I am satisfied that the appellant has shown sufficient cause as to why the appeal should not be struck out for want of prosecution.  I would make the following orders.  I would adjourn this appeal until the decision is given in the appellant's application for removal in the High Court of Australia.  That effectively then disposes of his need for a stay of this proceedings.  I would give leave to the applicant to file the application for a stay and dismiss it. I would also reserve the costs of and incidental to this application.

WHITE J:  I agree with the orders proposed by the President.

DUTNEY J:  I also agree.

THE PRESIDENT:  The orders are as I have proposed.

-----