Tallon v The Queen

Michael William Tallon was the applicant seeking special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the procedural requirements for an appeal by the Attorney-General against a sentence imposed under the Criminal Code. The applicant argued that the Attorney-General's appeal was out of time.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 671(2) of the Criminal Code, which stipulated that an appeal by the Attorney-General against sentence "shall be made within 28 days of the date of such sentence." The applicant contended that "made" in this context required both filing and service of the notice of appeal within the 28-day period, distinguishing it from the provisions governing an accused person's appeal.

The applicant's argument was that the language of section 671(2) imposed a stricter obligation on the Attorney-General than the provisions for an accused's appeal, which only required filing. The applicant submitted that this distinction was deliberate and served a purpose, although the precise rationale was not fully elaborated in the provided text. The Court considered the potential difficulties that could arise if the Crown was not required to serve the notice of appeal within the time limit, referencing a previous case, *Jeffers v The Queen*, where similar issues regarding election and extensions of time had arisen. The Court also considered the practical implications of the applicant's argument, such as a respondent evading service.