Collins (alias Hass) v The Queen [1975] HCA 60

Collins (alias Hass) v The Queen [1975] HCA 60

Order 70, rule 2(6) requiring applications for leave or special leave to appeal to be made by counsel is valid and not inconsistent with s. 78 of the Judiciary Act, because an applicant for special leave is not a 'party' within the meaning of s. 78; thus, the procedural restriction is within the Court's rulemaking power.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Application Refused
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
['right of Appearance' 'rulemaking Power' 'special Leave to Appeal']
['criminal Law' 'court Procedure'] ['right of Appearance' 'rulemaking Power' 'special Leave to Appeal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 70, rule 2(6) of the High Court Rules is repugnant to s. 78 of the Judiciary Act 1903-1973' "Whether an applicant for special leave is a 'party' within the meaning of s. 78" 'Whether a person in custody may appear personally to make an application for special leave']

Ratio Decidendi

Order 70, rule 2(6) requiring applications for leave or special leave to appeal to be made by counsel is valid and not inconsistent with s. 78 of the Judiciary Act, because an applicant for special leave is not a 'party' within the meaning of s. 78; thus, the procedural restriction is within the Court's rulemaking power.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • ['application refused']