Ryan v The Queen S164/1998 [1999] HCATrans 104 (16 April 1999)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S164 of 1998

B e t w e e n -

VINCENT GERARD RYAN

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 16 APRIL 1999, AT 1.00 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR P.A. JOHNSON, SC: If the Court pleases, in this matter I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Carroll & O'Dea)

MR A.M. BLACKMORE: If the Court pleases, I appear for the respondent with my learned friend, MR D.S. INVERARITY. (instructed by S.E. O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (New South Wales))

McHUGH J: Mr Johnson, this case seems to raise at least one of the issues that arises in the case of AB v The Queen in which special leave has been granted. Are you aware of that case?

MR JOHNSON: Yes, I am, your Honour. It is a case which was mentioned at the hearing in the Court of Criminal Appeal in this matter and in fact it was a basis upon which that court sought to deal with this appeal. So it is a foundational part of the reasoning of the Court of Criminal Appeal. One of the arguments I was going to put to this Court was that, apart from the other arguments advanced, the Court would consider granting special leave here and would allow the hearing of this appeal to go forward at the same time as AB. Alternatively, the Court would consider adjourning the application of this special leave application to 7 May, which I understand is the day when the AB appeal is listed for hearing, having regard to the fact that if the Court having to deal with the AB appeal and allow it, there is a risk of injustice to this applicant.

McHUGH J: Yes, I understand that. Mr Blackmore, what do you say about this procedure?

MR BLACKMORE: Obviously it does raise some similar issues but we have attempted to distinguish them, as your Honours will have seen, in relation to AB and we say that there are distinguishing features between AB and this case.

McHUGH J: There certainly are, particularly in relation to the extradition issues.

MR BLACKMORE: So that we would still maintain an opposition to leave at this stage. I do not know that I could be heard further in relation to an adjournment.

McHUGH J: No. Mr Johnson, we think the appropriate course would be to adjourn the matter until after judgment in AB and the special leave application can then be considered in the light of that particular case.

MR JOHNSON: I am conscious that is a third option which I did not put amongst the two options I wished to agitate to the Court today. But I am conscious that that is a course which would be reasonably open to the Court and I would not seek to be heard in opposition to that course.

McHUGH J: Yes. It is not as if, on any view, that your client is going to go anywhere.

MR JOHNSON: He is not going anywhere. Our real concern was to safeguard his position, having regard to the fact that the AB matter was now before this Court.

McHUGH J: The order that we will make is that the hearing of this matter be adjourned until after the delivery of judgment in the AB matter and it can be relisted as soon as convenient after judgment is given in that matter.

AT 1.03 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED