Sinanovic v The Queen S260/2000 [2001] HCATrans 601 (20 November 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S260 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

HAKIJA SINANOVIC

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S302 of 2000

B e t w e e n -

HAKIJA SINANOVIC

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

McHUGH J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 20 NOVEMBER 2001, AT 12.31 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

_________________

MR A.M. BLACKMORE, SC: I appear in this matter and the next matter for the respondent. (instructed by S.E. O'Connor)

MRS M.A. SINANOVIC: Excuse me, your Honour, I am Mrs Sinanovic. I am seeking the leave of the Court to appear on behalf of the applicant.

McHUGH J: What do you say about this, Mr Blackmore?

MR BLACKMORE: Your Honours, the Crown's normal position is not to take an issue with this except to leave it to the Court, however, there is a history to this matter and we do seek to make some submissions about this. The materials filed in Court in both this and the next matter do not challenge the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal in the manner requiring consideration by this Court, in our submission. The materials do not assist but rather include material that is wholly irrelevant to the hearing. No further elaboration of that material should be permitted by this Court, in our submission.

McHUGH J: Yes, thank you. Mrs Sinanovic, why should we give you leave to appear? You are not a lawyer. Comments have been made in the judgments below about there being no substance in the matter and you make allegations about judges, against judges, against legal representatives and Crown Prosecutors. All these materials and submissions and statements go on the transcript, they are published on the Internet and they are published to the world and why should the Court give you leave to appear?

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, in respect to the procedures and the Rules, they have been abided by. That is the first. So, in compliance with the High Court Rules notice has been given in compliance with the Rules and application for seeking leave to appear has been in compliance with the Rules. Secondly, to not grant leave in the

absence of an applicant who is in custody who cannot physically, by means of the Rules, be present, bearing in mind he has directed that his matters be submitted with oral submissions - - -

CALLINAN J: There is a more fundamental point. I have read your submissions. They do not help us in any way at all. They do not help us because they have been prepared by somebody - and I do not mean any offence to you, but they are prepared by somebody who does not have an understanding of legal principles or the legal issues involved. You cannot assist us, indeed, rather, the contrary.

MRS SINANOVIC: If I may just say one thing. In one of the lead questions there is the Dietrich on appeals. Now, that is a very good question that this Court would need to consider and that - - -

McHUGH J: We would get no assistance from you on that point and that is assuming the point can be raised at this stage.

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, it is quite - I mean, I do agree with you that it is - the courts would be frustrated by persons who do not have legal qualification but this is a democracy and this is where every single - - -

McHUGH J: It may be a democracy - Mrs Sinanovic, the point is that the time of this Court cannot be wasted by submissions which are not helpful to the Court.

MRS SINANOVIC: I would agree, your Honour, to direct that to me after you have heard oral submissions.

McHUGH J: No, we have read your written submissions and we have read the judgments and we have read what the Court of Criminal Appeal had to say and - - -

MRS SINANOVIC: But I do wish to add more to it.

McHUGH J: You may wish to add. The question is whether we will give you leave.

MRS SINANOVIC: Well, your Honour, with all - - -

McHUGH J: I will give you two or three minutes. Just put your reasons why we should give you leave, and that is all.

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, oppression has been against this applicant from day 1. Now, if oppression which is - - -

McHUGH J: You see, that is the sort of statement that you make that there is absolutely no evidence whatever to support. There is not a scintilla of evidence in the record to suggest that this applicant has been oppressed and that is the sort of statement that you want to make. It goes on the transcript, it is published to the world and you have not named any oppressor but the indication is, I suppose, that the judge or the Crown Prosecutor have oppressed. That is the implication. There is no evidence to support that.

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, in a democracy we are entitled, I believed, equally, irrespective of our race, our religion or if we are unqualified persons. These courts are public courts.

CALLINAN J: Only if you can assist us. If you are an unqualified - - -

MRS SINANOVIC: Would your Honour allow me that opportunity to assist this Court?

CALLINAN J: No, listen to me, please? Your written submissions do not assist us, indeed, rather to the contrary, they obfuscate the case, they are unintelligible in some respects, they misstate legal principle and they are totally unhelpful.

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, that may be your view and I respect your view but that might be not the view - - -

McHUGH J: It is my view as well, Mrs Sinanovic.

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, it might not be the view of the public. The public may want to hear it. This is why we have public hearings. This might be the view of the respondent submitting to the Court but this is also our public courts and our publics have the right to hear.

McHUGH J: The public have the right to hear. It does not mean that any member of the public can walk in off the street and put arguments to this Court. The general rule is that it is the litigant in person or a legal adviser, a legally trained person who can put submissions. Now, you seek an indulgence. Your conduct of these matters in the Court of Criminal Appeal has been criticised and we have read the material and there is nothing in those materials which gives the slightest - gives indication that we could have confidence that anything in your oral submissions would assist us.

MRS SINANOVIC: Well, if I may point out a number of factors. The Court of Criminal Appeal interrupted 168 times. That is just one point.

McHUGH J: Well, understandably. Understandably - - -

MRS SINANOVIC: That is where the criticism came, 168 times.

McHUGH J: Understandably, probably because they were getting no assistance. That is what the judges said.

MRS SINANOVIC: With all due respect, your Honour, the written submissions were not replied by the respondent in the Court of Criminal Appeal. They remained unchallenged. They did remain unchallenged.

McHUGH J: Leave is refused to appear. I propose to adjourn this application and the next application to enable your husband either to seek legal representation or to rely on his own submissions, but leave is refused, Mrs Sinanovic.

MRS SINANOVIC: Your Honour, with all due respect, the matter will not stop here.

McHUGH J: Be that as it may - - -

MRS SINANOVIC: I am sorry, your Honour, with all due respect, there is laws here. There is laws.

McHUGH J: You are not given leave.

MRS SINANOVIC: Thank you, your Honour, but the matter will not - the buck will not stop here, with all due respect to this Court.

McHUGH J: In matter No 10 and matter No 11 in the list, the matters are adjourned to a date to be fixed.

MR BLACKMORE: If the Court pleases.

AT 12.40 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED