HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AND FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v Cameron [1994] NSWCA 128

HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL IN AND FOR THE STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES v Cameron

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, MAHONEY JA and COLE JA 13 October 1994

[1994] NSWCA 128

CONTEMPT OF COURT

The opponent verbally abused, and threatened, and assaulted, a person who was waiting to give evidence on certain civil proceedings against the opponent's mother in the Local Court. Although the opponent was acting under personal stress his conduct was deliberate and was calculated, both objectively and subjectively, to intimidate the witness - HELD - The conduct amounted to contempt of court.

Gleeson CJ. The claimant claims a declaration that the opponent, Cameron Neale Hayden, is guilty of contempt of court in that on 20 January of this year at the Local Court at the Downing Centre at Sydney the opponent abused, threatened and assaulted Andrew David Duell in respect of the attendance of Andrew David Duell as a witness in certain proceedings in the Local Court.

In accordance with the Court's usual practice it has heard evidence and argument on the issue of liability before dealing with the question of penalty, if that question should arise. The opponent has foreshadowed that if the Court comes to the question of penalty he will desire to tender to the Court some psychiatric evidence.

The matter has been before the Court for interlocutory purposes on a number of occasions. When the matter was called this morning the opponent was represented by Mr Driels of counsel. However, shortly after the proceedings got under way Mr Driels informed the Court that his retainer, and that of his instructing solicitor, had been withdrawn and Mr Hayden then proceeded torepresent himself.

The facts of the case are within a relatively short compass and are clear.

On 20 January in this year the opponent's mother was involved in certain proceedings in the Local Court at the suit of the State of New South Wales. For reasons that need not be elaborated, the State claimed that Mrs Hayden owed the State an amount in excess of $ 3,500 for the cost of a transcript. The transcript related to a trial of the opponent in respect of an offence of which he was convicted. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal and the transcript was wanted in connection with that appeal.