Croll v Reeves [2005] HCATrans 466 (1 August 2005)

--

Croll v Reeves [2005] HCATrans 466 (1 August 2005)

Last Updated: 10 August 2005

[2005] HCATrans 466

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B27 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

LEONARD THEODORE CROLL

Applicant

and

MICHAEL REEVES

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON MONDAY, 1 AUGUST 2005, AT 2.59 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: Following the applicant’s trial and conviction in the District Court of Queensland of offences of dangerous driving, the applicant sought to apply to the District Court for a direction that certain witnesses who had appeared at that trial were in contempt of court for failing to obey their oath. The Registrar, the respondent in these proceedings, refused to accept the application.

An application to the Supreme Court of Queensland, pursuant to s 30 of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Q), for a rule or summons to show cause why the application should not be accepted or why a direction should not issue was dismissed by Holmes J. The Court of Appeal (McPherson and Keane JJA, Fryberg J) dismissed the application for leave to appeal and awarded the respondent costs on an indemnity basis. The reasons of the Court were delivered by Keane JA. His Honour held that the application to the Supreme Court had been misconceived for the reasons given by Holmes J.

There would be no prospect of success in any appeal to this Court. Special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 3.01 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED