Havord v Chief of Navy [2001] ADFDAT 1

DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

Havord v Chief of Navy [2001] ADFDAT 1

TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD v CHIEF OF NAVY NO DFDAT 2 OF 2001 HEEREY P 2 MAY 2001 MELBOURNE DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DFDAT 2 OF 2001

BETWEEN: TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD

APPLICANT

AND: CHIEF OF NAVY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HEEREY P

DATE OF ORDER: 2 MAY 2001

WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. Leave to file the notice of appeal is granted. 2. Time for filing the notice of appeal is extended to 20 March 2001. DEFENCE FORCE DISCIPLINE APPEALS TRIBUNAL DFDAT 2 OF 2001

BETWEEN: TIMOTHY PETER HAVORD

APPLICANT

AND: CHIEF OF NAVY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HEEREY P

DATE: 2 MAY 2001

PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant applies for an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal from the judgment of Wing Commander T P Burke, Defence Force Magistrate given on 11 August 2000 at HMAS Stirling, Garden Island, Western Australia. 2 The proposed notice of appeal was lodged with the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal on 19 March 2001 and filed on 20 March 2001. 3 An extension of time is required because a notice of appeal was not filed and served within the time limit set out in the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth) (the Act). 4 Counsel was under the misapprehension that he had 90 days after 23 January 2001 to file the Notice of Appeal after being so advised by the Deputy Fleet Legal Officer, Lieutenant Paul Kerr RAN. 5 Counsel subsequently lodged the Notice of Appeal on 19 March 2001 within two days of learning that the appeal had to be lodged within 30 days of the conviction pursuant to s 21(2) of the Act. 6 As Counsel acted quickly to file the Notice of the Appeal the Tribunal orders that leave to file and serve the Notice of Appeal shall be granted. The respondent does not allege any prejudice and does not object to the extension of time. Accordingly the time for the filing of the Notice of Appeal will be extended to the 20 March 2001.