Harris, In the matter of an application for leave to issue or file [2017] HCATrans 138 (30 June 2017)

Last Updated: 3 July 2017

[2017] HCATrans 138

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Brisbane No B29 of 2017

In the matter of -

an application by KAREN HARRIS for leave to issue or file

NETTLE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 30 JUNE 2017, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HIS HONOUR: On 15 May 2017, Bell J directed the Registrar pursuant to r 6.07.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) to refuse to issue or file the applicant’s application for special leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland given and made on 21 March 2017 in Proceeding CA No 16 of 2017 (DC No 39 of 2016). The applicant now seeks leave, pursuant to r 6.07.3, for the Registrar to issue or file the document.

The procedural history of the matter is sufficiently summarised in the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal:

(1) The applicant was charged with a series of alleged offences said to have been committed on 17 June 2015 and, on 10 November 2016, she was convicted in absentia in the Magistrates’ Court at Beenleigh.

(2) On 28 November 2016, the applicant filed an appeal to the District Court of Queensland under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld).

(3) In the meantime, the Magistrates’ Court set aside the orders the subject of appeal and ordered that the trial of the alleged offences resume in February 2017.

(4) In the result, the orders the subject of appeal to the District Court ceased to exist and, accordingly, on 7 February 2017, a judge of the District Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal to that Court.

(5) On 14 February 2017, the applicant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the order of the District Court judge, whereafter the trial of the alleged offences in the Magistrates’ Court at Beenleigh was adjourned until 29 June 2017.

As is observed in effect in the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal, because the orders of the Magistrates’ Court which were the subject of the applicant’s appeal to the District Court were set aside before that appeal was heard, there ceased to be a basis for the appeal and consequently it was appropriate that it be dismissed. For the same reason, there was no point in the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal and it was appropriate that that application be dismissed.

For the same reason, it is manifest that any appeal to this Court against the orders of the Court of Appeal would enjoy no prospect of success; and thus that the application for special leave to appeal is both frivolous and vexatious.

For these reasons the applicant’s application for leave to issue or file the application for special leave to appeal is dismissed.

AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED