(1) Order that the applicant be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for advice and representation in relation to his application for leave to appeal to this Court.
(2) No order as to costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:
PROCEDURE - application for order for referral to legal practitioner on Pro Bono Panel - applicant suffering cognitive difficulties affecting ability to present oral argument - whether referral in interests of administration of justice - application granted
Hetherington-Gregory v All Vehicle Services (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 257 M v Director General, Department of Family and Community Services [2013] NSWCA 118
Category:
Procedural and other rulings
Parties:
Simon Margan (Applicant) NSW Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
Representation
- Counsel:
Counsel: In person (Applicant) Ms R Giurastante (Respondent)
- Solicitors:
Solicitors: In person (Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent)
File Number(s):
2013/70427
Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
Supreme Court
- Before:
Grove AJ
- Date of Decision:
07 February 2013
- Citation:
Simon Margan v NSW Director of Public Prosecutions and Attorney General of New South Wales [2013] NSWSC 44
- Court File Number(s):
2012/00103496
JUDGMENT
MEAGHER JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of Grove AJ dismissing his claim for a declaration that certain advice tendered by the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney General was incorrect and directions that it should not be acted upon. That advice concerned whether proceedings for the offence of inciting hatred under s 49ZTA(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 were required to be commenced no later than six months from when the offence was alleged to have been committed. The alleged perpetrator of that offence, a Mr Manias, was subsequently charged with assault causing actual bodily harm to persons including the applicant, and, following pleas of guilty, was convicted of that and other charges. The applicant has suffered significant injuries as a result of that assault. Those injuries include persisting cognitive difficulties as a result of which he experiences problems with his speech and has an intermittent stutter.
The applicant is a law graduate, but has not obtained his law practising certificate. He represented himself before the primary judge and does so in his application to this Court. He seeks an order under the Uniform…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Sunol v Collier (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Sunol v Collier (No 2) [2013] NSWCA 196
Case
[2013] NSWCA 196
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Sunol v Collier (No 2)*, the applicant sought an order for referral to a legal practitioner on the Pro Bono Panel. The applicant was experiencing cognitive difficulties that impaired his ability to present oral argument. The central question before the Court was whether such a referral was in the interests of the administration of justice.
The Court was required to determine whether the applicant's cognitive difficulties constituted a sufficient basis to warrant the appointment of pro bono representation. This involved considering the overarching principle of ensuring justice is administered fairly and accessibly, particularly for litigants facing significant personal challenges that might hinder their capacity to effectively participate in court proceedings.
Meagher JA granted the application, reasoning that the interests of justice demanded that the applicant receive assistance to present his case. The Court recognised that cognitive impairments could create a substantial barrier to a litigant's ability to articulate their arguments, and that providing pro bono assistance was an appropriate mechanism to overcome this barrier and ensure a fair hearing. Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for advice and representation in relation to his application for leave to appeal. No order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Order that the applicant be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for advice and representation in relation to his application for leave to appeal to this Court.
(2) No order as to costs.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]