Szulc v McNamara [No 2]
[2012] WASCA 62
•19 MARCH 2012
SZULC -v- McNAMARA [No 2] [2012] WASCA 62
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASCA 62 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 19/03/2012 | ||
| Case No: | CACV:152/2011 | 12 MARCH 2012 | |
| Coram: | MAZZA JA | 12/03/12 | |
| 4 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| D | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | MAXWELL JAN SZULC KEIRAN McNAMARA |
Catchwords: | Criminal law Application for release from custody pending appeal |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 Szulc v McNamara (2012) WASCA 3 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SZULC -v- McNAMARA [No 2] [2012] WASCA 62 CORAM : MAZZA JA HEARD : 12 MARCH 2012 DELIVERED : 12 MARCH 2012 PUBLISHED : 19 MARCH 2012 FILE NO/S : CACV 152 of 2011 BETWEEN : MAXWELL JAN SZULC
- Applicant
AND
KEIRAN McNAMARA
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : MARTIN CJ
Citation : CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT AND CONSERVATION -v- SZULC [No 2] [2011] WASC 315
File No : CIV 2722 of 2009
Catchwords:
Criminal law - Application for release from custody pending appeal
(Page 2)
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: D
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : Mr T C Russell
Solicitors:
Applicant : In person
Respondent : State Solicitor for Western Australia
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292
Szulc v McNamara (2012) WASCA 3
(Page 3)
- MAZZA JA:
(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 12 March 2012 and has been edited from the transcript.)
1 Before me is Mr Szulc's application for release from custody pending appeal dated 27 January 2012. This is Mr Szulc's second such application. I dismissed his first application on 22 December 2011. My reasons for doing so are set out in Szulc v McNamara (2012) WASCA 3. Those reasons set out in brief terms all the background that is necessary to dispose of the present application. I will not repeat it.
2 As I did on the previous occasion, I will assume that I have the power to release Mr Szulc pending the determination of his appeal.
3 For the present application to succeed, it is necessary for Mr Szulc to demonstrate a material change in circumstances since his last appearance which would justify me taking the exceptional course of releasing him pending the outcome of his appeal. The circumstances identified by Mr Szulc are that he has refined his grounds of appeal and that those grounds of appeal have the requisite degree of merit to justify his release.
4 The grounds of appeal have been refined. They are contained in a document which was dated 1 March 2012. It is now clear that Mr Szulc is not appealing against sentence. His appeal is confined only to Martin CJ's findings of contempt.
5 The two grounds of appeal now relied upon allege that, first, the proceedings before Martin CJ should have been stayed until Mr Szulc received legal representation pursuant to Dietrich v The Queen [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292. The second ground of appeal mounts a collateral attack on the interim injunction granted on 8 October 2009 and varied on 2 November 2009. As I understand it, Mr Szulc alleges that the interim injunction was made unlawfully. It is not clear to me exactly how it is said that the interim injunction was unlawful.
6 It is not appropriate for me to examine in detail Mr Szulc's grounds of appeal. That will be done at a full hearing.
7 It is sufficient for present purposes to say that I am not at this stage persuaded that the grounds of appeal have sufficient prospects of success to justify Mr Szulc's release from custody pending the outcome of the appeal.
8 For these reasons Mr Szulc's application is dismissed.
4
1