Peter Steven Viavattene v New South Wales Police Peter Steven Viavattene v New South Wales Police Peter Steven Viavattene v New South Wales Police Peter Steven Viavattene v New South Wales Police Peter Steven...

PETER STEVEN VIAVATTENE
v
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE
PETER STEVEN VIAVATTENE
v
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE
PETER STEVEN VIAVATTENE
v
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE
PETER STEVEN VIAVATTENE
v
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE
PETER STEVEN VIAVATTENE
v
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE
PETER STEVEN VIAVATTENE
v
NEW SOUTH WALES POLICE
[2013] HCASL 88
S316/2012
S317/2012
S318/2012
S319/2012
S320/2012
S321/2012

The applicant was charged with various offences including common assault, failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking and contravening a prohibition or restriction in an apprehended violence order. On 23 November 2012, he was convicted on each charge by Dakin LCM in the Local Court of New South Wales and directed to enter into a good behaviour bond for two years.
The six applications for removal before this Court seek orders that the whole of the causes said to be pending in the Local Court be removed to the High Court. The causes to which the applications refer were finalised on 23 November 2012. The applications are incompetent because there are no pending proceedings to which s 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) could apply.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application.

S.M. Kiefel
5 June 2013 P.A. Keane

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Peter Steven Viavattene who was charged with various offences including common assault, failing to appear in accordance with a bail undertaking and contravening a prohibition or restriction in an apprehended violence order. Viavattene was convicted on each charge by Dakin LCM in the Local Court of New South Wales and ordered to enter into a good behaviour bond for two years. Viavattene then applied for the removal of the proceedings to the High Court under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The High Court was required to determine whether the applications for removal were competent, given that the proceedings had already been finalised.

The High Court considered whether the applications for removal were competent given that the proceedings had already been finalised. The Court found that the applications were incompetent because there were no pending proceedings to which section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) could apply. The Court dismissed the applications on the basis that there were no proceedings pending in the Local Court to be removed to the High Court.

The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application. The applications for removal were dismissed as incompetent because the proceedings had already been finalised and there were no pending proceedings to which section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) could apply. The Court's decision was based on the plain language of the statute and the fact that the proceedings had already been finalised. The Court did not need to consider any other issues in the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established