Sinanovic v The Queen S302/2000 [2002] HCATrans 408 (20 August 2002)

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

KIRBY J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 20 AUGUST 2002, AT 2.35 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

________________

MS M.J. SCANLAN: Your Honour, I appear for Hakija Sinanovic. (instructed by the applicant)

MR R.D. ELLIS: I appear for the respondent Crown in both matters, your Honours. (instructed by S.E. O'Connor, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)

McHUGH J: Now, what is the position, Ms Scanlan? You have filed some affidavits in this matter.

MS SCANLAN: Yes, your Honour. I only actually have instructions to appear. I do not have instructions to either adjourn or proceed with it - simply to appear.

McHUGH J: Now, have you made any inquiries concerning this document that was sent by courier to the Court and which purports to be signed by your client?

MS SCANLAN: I have seen that document, your Honour. If I am pressed for an answer on that, I have sought to confirm the signature by other documents in my possession. I must say that I have had trouble even obtaining other documents of any nature, of any kind, in relation to any of these two matters and I cannot confirm that signature. I cannot say one way or the other whether it is my client's signature or not.

McHUGH J: Well, it is a curious document. It does not mention you, notwithstanding the fact that you received instructions to act in this matter on 16 August.

MS SCANLAN: Yes, your Honour.

McHUGH J: It also contains a statement that all future correspondence is to be sent to a mailbox which happens to be the mailbox of Mrs Sinanovic which is referred to in her papers.

MS SCANLAN: Yes.

McHUGH J: I take it then that you cannot assist the Court. You have instructions to appear but you have no instructions to press the matter further.

MS SCANLAN: Yes.

McHUGH J: Yes, thank you, Ms Scanlan, for your assistance. Mr Ellis, what is the Crown's attitude to this matter?

MR ELLIS: The Crown's attitude, your Honour, is that the matter should proceed today.

McHUGH J: Yes, thank you. Well, I think in the circumstances - the Court has considered the matter - we will have to proceed, Ms Scanlan.

The Court has before it two applications, S260 of 2000 and S302 of 2000, in which the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against criminal convictions. The matters were listed for hearing on 20 November last year when Mrs Sinanovic sought leave to appear for the applicant. On that occasion the Crown opposed the granting of leave. The Court refused to grant Mrs Sinanovic leave to appear on behalf of Mr Sinanovic and adjourned the matter to enable the applicant either to seek legal representation or to rely on his own submissions that had already been filed.

On Friday last, 16 August 2002, Ms Margaret Scanlan filed a notice of appearance as the applicant's solicitor in these matters. In Court today she has informed us that she has instructions to appear but she is not in a position to proceed with the matter.

On Monday last, 19 August 2002, the Court received a bundle of documents, delivered by courier, one of which was typewritten in English but purported to be signed by the applicant. It purports to give notice that the applicant has "temporarily dismissed my wife Mrs Maria Antoinetta Sinanovic from my pending court matters. I have now full carriage of my own matters." It goes on to ask that "none of my matters pending are to be abandoned or dismissed." The document also asks for an extension of time to file the appeal books in two other matters and for the other pending matters to wait until he is released from custody.

Curiously, the document makes no mention of the applicant having instructed a solicitor as recently as 16 August 2002, as deposed to by Ms Scanlan in an affidavit filed in this Court. According to Ms Scanlan, the applicant has given her instructions to act in the matter and said that he would telephone his wife and tell her not to appear for him in these proceedings. Ms Scanlan also deposes that she understands that the applicant does not read or write English. Another curiosity is that the document requests that all future correspondence be forwarded to a mailbox, which happens to be the mailbox address of Mrs Sinanovic, as appears from documents filed in this Court. A further curiosity is that all the other documents forwarded to the Court on Monday appear to have been drafted by Mrs Sinanovic.

The Court is concerned as to whether the instructions in the document represent the applicant's instructions and whether, in fact, he signed the document.

Having studied the application books, the Court is of the view that the applications have no prospects of succeeding. In the circumstances, we will simply dismiss both applications. Even if the documents to which we have referred genuinely represent the applicant's requests, we would not consider hearing an application to extend the time for filing the application books in S101 and S102 of 2001 without a summons being filed with a supporting affidavit.

Accordingly, we dismiss the applications in S260 and S302 of 2000. We also think that it is proper to refer the papers in this matter to the Federal Attorney-General to consider investigating whether the proceedings in relation to these applications have given rise to any offence against a law of the Commonwealth or to any contempt of this Court.

Accordingly, the formal order of the Court is the applications in matters S260 and S302 of 2000 are dismissed.

There being no other business before the Court, adjourn the Court.

AT 2.46 PM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED