Rigney-Hopkins v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 280 (6 June 2006)

--

Rigney-Hopkins v The Queen [2006] HCATrans 280 (6 June 2006)

Last Updated: 14 June 2006

[2006] HCATrans 280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B93 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY GRZEGORZ RIGNEY-HOPKINS

Applicant

and

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Summons

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON TUESDAY, 6 JUNE 2006, AT 11.32 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR C.B.G. RIGNEY-HOPKINS appeared in person.

MR B.G. CAMPBELL: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland))

HIS HONOUR: Yes, Mr Rigney-Hopkins.

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Your Honour, I am here today for an extension of time – a grant of extension of time for an application for special leave to appeal. The reason for my extension of time was that I was within time to lodge my summary of argument but - - -

HIS HONOUR: You were in prison at the time and there was a discussion or a problem about the knowledge of the prison authorities with respect to filing, is that so?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: That is correct, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR: Just tell me what the chronology is. Had the papers been served at the same time as they were actually received in the High Court, would you have been within time then?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Yes, your Honour, if the papers had been served correctly, I would have very well been in time.

HIS HONOUR: What happened then? Eventually you learnt that they had to be filed personally and - - -

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: - - - postage was not sufficient?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: No.

HIS HONOUR: What happened then?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: What happened then at that point, the staff of Borallon affirmed to me that posting was sufficient but then I was very soon to be released at that point, only several days to my release from prison, and then I was released at that point and then I had to then lodge the documents myself but then presented with a new situation of as I am no longer a prisoner I have to then seek - - -

HIS HONOUR: Did you file the papers then properly or what happened?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: I did. I filed the application as soon as I was able to properly and then I prepared a summary of argument which I do have here today, your Honour, though a very – an unfortunate situation occurred. The day before my summary of argument, within time, was to be able to be lodged I had a computer failure and I thought I lost my summary of argument which took a long time to prepare. Although I spent quite a number of hours on the computer recovering the document and then I did find the document, though I was one day late past the 28-day time limit – three month – I am sorry, I am not sure what the time limit was on the summary of argument, your Honour, but I was just slightly out of time, and at that point I telephoned a Rosemary Musolino I believe her name to be - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: - - - and she advised me that I would need to lodge a summons to appear before the Court in order to ask for an extension.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Just I will interrupt you for a moment, Mr Rigney-Hopkins.

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Yes, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Mr Campbell, what is your attitude to all of this?

MR CAMPBELL: Your Honour, I cannot sensibly oppose. He did make the – or bring the summons to prevent the deeming abandonment.

HIS HONOUR: It seems that he did everything he possibly could and he was under a disadvantage at the time.

MR CAMPBELL: Yes, I cannot sensibly oppose - - -

HIS HONOUR: I think that is a very proper attitude, Mr Campbell.

MR CAMPBELL: Your Honour, it is probably necessary to make a couple of orders. Firstly, under rule 41.10.4 it is necessary for your Honour to order that the application is not deemed to be abandoned and then probably under I think it is rule 2.03.2 to make an order, in essence, extending time for the case stated to be filed.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. You say you have your case – your outline, is that right?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Yes, your Honour, I do. I am ready to serve that upon - - -

HIS HONOUR: You mean the outline, I think, Mr Campbell, is that right?

MR CAMPBELL: It is unrepresented. Under the Rules it refers to a case stated.

HIS HONOUR: You are quite right, yes. Yes, Mr Rigney-Hopkins?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Yes, your Honour, I do have my summary of argument prepared. It is ready to be lodged with the Registry and the DPP, upon the consent of the Court. I have a copy here for your Honour, if you wish, and the DPP as well.

HIS HONOUR: Look, subject to your filing that within 48 hours from now – filing and serving it within 48 hours from now, I propose to make the orders which Mr Campbell has very helpfully pointed out are the necessary orders.

MR CAMPBELL: Your Honour, it is not necessary for him to file – and the Crown at this stage. At this stage he only files in the Registry and then if there is an order - - -

HIS HONOUR: You are quite right. We may or may not want – yes, there is no need for you to serve. There is nothing to prevent you serving it upon the respondent, if you want to. So, subject to that amendment, that is, subject to the amendment that I have just mentioned, which will mean that I will make orders as suggested by Mr Campbell, subject to your filing in the Registry your case stated within 24 hours from now. Nothing further, then?

MR CAMPBELL: No, thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Rigney-Hopkins.

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: One thing, your Honour, and now after this, is this matter, this hearing finalised today or is it - - -

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Is there something else you wanted?

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: No, I do not believe so. So now it will continue on in the ordinary course?

HIS HONOUR: I have given you the leave that you have sought.

MR RIGNEY-HOPKINS: Yes. Thank you very much, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: There is nothing further? Thank you.

AT 11.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED