Van Der Meer & Ors v The Queen - [1988] HCATrans 53

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry

Brisbane No BS9 of 1987
B e t w e e n -
ROBERT VAN DER MEER
First Applicant

and
SAUL EERICK STORHANNUS
Second Applicant

and
PETER ROSS AYLIFFE
Third Applicant

and
THE QUEEN

Van Der Meer

Respondent

Application for special leave
to appeal
MASON CJ
WILSON J
DEANE J
DAWSON J
TOOHEY J
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 24 MARCH 1988, AT 10.17 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia

ClTl/1/HS 1 24/3/88

MR K. MURRAY, QC: May it please Your Honours, I appear with
my learned friends, MR D. CAMPBELL and MR D.J. DURSTON
for the applicant. (instructed by Foreshaws)

MR P.G. NASE: May it please the Court, I appear with
MR D. BULLOCK on behalf of the respondent.
(instructed by D.G. Sturgess, QC, Director of
Public Prosecutions)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Murray.
MR MURRAY: May it please Your Honours, the applicant needs an
extension of time and has some problem with the
delay in the prosecution of the appeal.

MASON CJ: Yes.
MR MURRAY: An affidavit was filed, Your Honour, with the Court
yesterday, I believe, from Mrs Van Der Meer.

MASON CJ: Yes, we have that.
MR MURRAY: I would ask Your Honour to permit me to include

that in the material before the Court.

MASON CJ: Yes.

MR MURRAY: The problems are also addressed, Your Honour, in
an affidavit that the Sydney solicitor for the
applicants prepared a little earlier, Your Honour.

WILSON J: That one is not very informative, Mr Murray, is it?

MR MURRAY: Almost laconic, Your Honour.
WILSON J: Yes. In particular the date when instructions were
first received was given as 1986.

MR MURRAY: Just the year.
WILSON J:

Yes. Any more particularity?
MR MURRAY: Your Honour, I am unable, from the table, to give

Your Honours any more precise terms than that. The
best I could say, Your Honour, in relation to the
question of delay is as is set out in Mrs Van Der Meer's
affidavit. That family first learned of their son's
problems about the time of the hearing before the
Court of Criminal Appeal in Brisbane and the families
were spread significantly, even by Australian standards.
The Van Der Meers have resided successively in far
north Queensland, in the top end of the Northern
Territory and in central Queensland over the history
of the preparation of this matter, Your Honour.

ClTl/2/HS 2
Van Der Meer
MR MURRAY (continuing): Several solicitors have been involved;
solicitors were initially engaged in Brisbane;
solicitors were then engaged in the town of Katherine
in the Northern Territory, that is Darwin solicitors
with a Katherine branch and, Your Honour, it is
a matter of concern but the facts are that it has
just, Your Honour, been a problem of time and space
and resources.

MASON CJ: It certainly is a matter of concern because 1n
cases of this kind the notion of a new trial after
a considerable lapse of…

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 Van Der Meer & Ors v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Van Der Meer & Ors v The Queen [1988] HCATrans 53
Case: [1988] HCATrans 53
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an application for special leave to appeal by Saul Eerick Storhannus, represented by Mr K. Murray, QC, and his learned friends. The respondent was represented by Mr P.G. Nase and Mr D. Bullock. The applicant sought an extension of time to prosecute the appeal, citing significant delays in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant special leave to appeal, which necessitated considering the applicant's request for an extension of time. The applicant's counsel argued that the case involved important and substantial matters concerning the administration of criminal justice in Australia, particularly in relation to the admissibility of a confession.

The Court was informed that the delay was attributable to various factors, including the geographical dispersion of the applicant's family, the involvement of multiple solicitors across different locations, and the general difficulty in coordinating the preparation of the appeal. Counsel for the applicant contended that the confession material in question demonstrated a deliberate disregard for established police procedures and legal safeguards designed to prevent unconscionable pressure on individuals in custody, referencing principles laid down in *Williams' case*. The Court acknowledged the concern regarding the considerable lapse of time in cases of this nature, particularly when a new trial might be contemplated.

Orders