Keech v The Queen M157/2002 [2002] HCATrans 660 (16 December 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Melbourne No M157 of 2002

B e t w e e n -

IAN NORMAN KEECH

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Bail Application

HAYNE J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON MONDAY, 16 DECEMBER 2002, AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR J.W. LEE: If your Honour pleases, I appear on behalf of Mr Keech. (instructed by Byrne & Clark)

MR R.L. GIBSON: If your Honour pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent. (instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (Victoria)

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Lee.

MR LEE: Your Honour, I would be asking for the matter to be adjourned to the next available sitting date here. Affidavit material - - -

HIS HONOUR: That will be in February, Mr Lee, at the very earliest.

MR LEE: I understand that, your Honour. It is as a result of the recalcitrance of my own client. Affidavit material was served on us by fax, I am told, on Thursday, although I spoke to my instructor this morning; he did not get it until Friday and I did not get it until today and it does require an answer. It relates basically to his medical condition and to his records and, for some reason unknown to us, we have not had an opportunity to speak to him since perusing this. He refused to consent to access being given to his medical records.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, if you want the matter adjourned over, unless Mr Gibson has some profoundly good reason why that should not happen - - -

MR LEE: Well, it is on his own head, your Honour, the delay, it cannot be said otherwise.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. I could, I think, do it in the Australia Day week, that is, I could do it on Wednesday 29 or Thursday 30 January. Would either of those days be convenient to you, Mr Lee?

MR LEE: The 30^th would be, your Honour, not the 29^th.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, Mr Gibson, is there any reason not to adjourn it over?

MR GIBSON: We do oppose it for this reason, your Honour, that in the affidavit that has been sworn by Edwin Vaughan Clark, he makes the assertion in paragraph 5 "that the Applicant's state of health has substantially deteriorated", and he produces a letter, which is marked with the letter "C", being the report from Dr J. Miller, dated 25 October 2002. Now, the point about that letter is that it does not say anything at all concerning the deterioration in the health of the applicant since he has been in prison.

HIS HONOUR: Assume all that to be so, assume contrary to the contention of the applicant that his health has even improved, why should not I adjourn his application for bail?

MR GIBSON: Well, the point I am making, your Honour, is that the applicant has had time. This affidavit was sworn on 26 November 2002.

HIS HONOUR: No doubt all that is right, Mr Gibson, no doubt he has had a lot of time to consider his position. People in prison commonly do. Why should I not adjourn it over? He wants bail, he is not moving today, what am I meant to do? Dismiss the application?

MR GIBSON: Well, I mean, if you have read the material, your Honour - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes, which I have.

MR GIBSON: Yes, your Honour. Well, in view of that, your Honour, I will not press it any further.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. The application will stand adjourned to 30 - - -

MR GIBSON: Your Honour, I just wondered whether - you mentioned the 29^th. I have been in the matter since it was argued in the Court of Appeal. The 30^th I am part heard. I wonder if the 29^th would - - -

HIS HONOUR: No, Mr Lee tells me the 29^th is no good to him. I am not going to conduct a Dutch auction between you. If I do not do it on any of the 29, 30 and 31, it will stand over until the second half of February, and I do not think bail applications should stand over.

MR GIBSON: The 31^st is a common date.

HIS HONOUR: The 31^st? I will go and consult the vendor: 31 January 2003.

MR LEE: Thank you, your Honour.

AT 9.41 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL FRIDAY 31 JANUARY 2003