Spilios v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application by Mr Spilios to expedite the hearing of his case. Mr Spilios was represented by Mr K.V. Borick, QC, and the respondent, the Queen, was represented by Mr I.D. Press, SC. The parties appeared by video link from Canberra and Adelaide respectively.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant Mr Spilios' application to expedite the hearing. However, this issue became moot due to the recent publication of a judgment in a related matter, *Miller*. The Court also considered the potential for Mr Spilios to amend his special leave application in light of the *Miller* judgment, specifically referencing paragraph 16 of that decision, which concerned the correct reflection of the law in the latter part of the 19th century.

The Court noted that the publication of the *Miller* judgment rendered the application to expedite the hearing futile. Both parties agreed that the summons should be dismissed. Mr Spilios' counsel indicated an intention to amend the special leave application to refer to the *Miller* judgment, particularly concerning the application of *McAuliffe* to Mr Spilios' case. The Chief Justice advised that if the intention was to overturn the *Miller* judgment's comments on *McAuliffe*, it would require a seven-justice bench and likely be heard in the following year. If not seeking to overturn *Miller*, it would ordinarily be heard by a five-justice bench in the near future. Mr Spilios' counsel undertook to inform the Registrar within 14 days whether an application to amend would be pursued.

The High Court ordered that the summons dated 27 May 2016 be dismissed, with no order as to costs.