Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jarvie [2017] NSWSC 192

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jarvie [2017] NSWSC 192 Hearing dates: 28 February 2017 Date of orders: 28 February 2017 Decision date: 28 February 2017 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: Russell Alan Jarvie is remanded in custody Catchwords: CIVIL – contempt proceedings – application for release order – applicant remanded in custody Legislation Cited: Bail Act 2013 Cases Cited: Not Applicable Texts Cited: Not Applicable Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Applicant) Russell Alan Jarvie (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Kell SC (Crown) A Brookman (Defendant)

Solicitors: Crown Solicitor Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Defendant) File Number(s): 2015/148650 Publication restriction: Not Applicable

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1. On 9 May 2015 the Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales filed a Summons naming Mr Russell Allan Jarvie as a defendant. The Summons sought a declaration that Mr Jarvie was guilty of contempt of the Supreme Court in that between 27 March 2014 and 29 March 2014 he altered Supreme Court orders which had been signed and sealed by the Court on 27 March 2014. 2. The Summons sought an order that Mr Jarvie be punished or otherwise dealt with for such contempt of court. Those proceedings have not yet been finally heard or determined.

Contempt Proceedings 1. On 18 August 2016, the Crown Solicitor, who is acting for the Prothonotary, filed a notice of motion seeking an order in the Court's inherent jurisdiction that Mr Jarvie be required to attend the Supreme Court on 16 September 2016, and thereafter as required, to answer the charge of contempt of court which was set out in the Summons. 2. In support of that order, the Prothonotary relied upon evidence which enabled a ready conclusion to be drawn that the defendant, Mr Jarvie, was either deliberately ignoring the Court orders with respect to the contempt proceedings which had been commenced, and as well, was taking positive steps to avoid service of any legal documentation relating to the contempt proceedings. There was abundant evidence for such a conclusion. 3. The Court made an order requiring Mr Jarvie to attend on 16 September 2016. Although I have not heard evidence, and I reserve to another time a final conclusion about that order and its effect, the evidence satisfies me at this stage, and for present purposes only, that it is likely that that date did come to the knowledge of Mr Jarvie. He did not attend in answer to that order.