Ferdinands v Chief of Army

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 31 July 2013, Mr Ferdinands, who has sought to invoke the jurisdiction conferred on the Court by s 52 of the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955 (Cth), filed an application whereby he sought, in effect, an adjournment of the hearing of his appeal from the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal (Tribunal), which is presently set down before a Full Court on 12 August 2013. Also listed at that time is an application by the respondent, Chief of Army, for the summary dismissal of Mr Ferdinands' appeal. 2 Mr Ferdinands' application of 31 July 2013 also makes reference to "new and fresh evidence in this case". Whatever the content of that may be, it would either be found in that which was before the Tribunal or insofar as it was not, it would be for Mr Ferdinands to seek to have the Full Court receive that material. 3 There has been an exchange of correspondence between the Court's South Australian Registry and Mr Ferdinands in relation to the contents of the appeal book. In the ordinary course, it is for an appellant to prepare, file and serve an appeal book. The contents of the appeal book, both as to part A and part B, are set out in a letter of 26 July 2013 from the registry to Mr Ferdinands. The Chief of Army is aware of the contents of that letter and, more particularly, what is proposed to be in the appeal book. Mr Ferdinands has felt himself, as many litigants-in-person do, under a particular burden both in terms of time and expense in relation to the preparation of the appeal book. It became apparent on the hearing of his application this afternoon, that that particular burden very much intruded upon his motivation for seeking the adjournment of the hearing of the appeal. There was also, it must be said, in the material upon which he relied, reference to a medical ailment although, in the scheme of things, it was not that in itself which prompted the application for the adjournment, as opposed to that in conjunction with the burden of both preparing appeal books, as well as preparing for an argument. 4 Perhaps recognising the difficulties that a litigant-in-person can face, and also how the interests of justice might best be served, the Chief of Army, this afternoon, volunteered to undertake the task of preparing the appeal books which would contain the material set out in that letter from the registry of 26 July 2013. That is a course which is to be commended in the interests of justice. Once Mr Ferdinands became aware of that disposition on the part of the Chief of Army, he, in turn, quite frankly and equally commendably, conceded that the medical condition concerned was not, in itself, one which would prevent, now that he was relieved of the appeal book preparation burden, his presenting his case on appeal. 5 I made it plain to Mr Ferdinands that, were he to desirous introducing anything beyond that which was in the draft index as set out in the letter of 26 July 2013, it would be for him to persuade the Full Court that it should be received and further, to prepare the requisite number of copies of any such material. It also became apparent on the hearing this afternoon that the Chief of Army and Mr Ferdinands had each undertaken preparation against the background of an expectation that the strike out application and the substantive appeal arguments would all be heard together. 6 In these circumstances, the occasion for adjourning the hearing of the appeal and the striking out application no longer exists. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan.