Kharon,
I will start by saying that the following in no way should be interpreted as other than the jottings of an observer who has no interest in the matter other than a professional one in the outcome.
I wish all parties well; this information is in the public domain and will shortly be before the courts when comment again would be inappropriate.
So,
This is Jones requesting leave to appeal to the High Court for 'special leave' to appeal to the High Court.
This may sound a bit convoluted but Jones requires the High Court's permission to actually bring his appeal before that court.
It appears that Jones has a date for the High Court to consider whether it will hear his appeal of 08 Feb 12.
If the High Court agrees to hear his appeal, then there will be a hearing of the substantive appeal (more than likely) at a later date.
Here is the last 'action', so to speak:
Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 1416 (9 December 2011)
In particular, DODDS-STREETON J, said, inter alia, on allowing Jones to go forward to apply for 'special leave to appeal':
'The appellant’s principal argument, however, may fall into the category of special leave application referred to in
Westpac, concerning an alleged significant irregularity in the way the court below dealt with the case, said to involve a potentially unlawful invasion of the rights and liberties of a citizen.
In the light of the above, while the appellant has not at this stage precisely articulated the proposed grounds, I proceed on the basis that the appellant has some, but not substantial, prospects for success in an application for special leave, which may be perceived to relate to an issue involving the interests of justice in a particular case.'
So, the judge thinks he may succeed with his application for special leave to appeal. i.e. the pleading will not be 'hopeless'. This is not a comment on the
substance of the appeal.
Here is the original action:
Jones v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2011] FCA 632 (6 June 2011)
I will not rewrite it all here due to time and space issues but I think you will find paragraphs 14 to 25 informative as to the contentious issue, namely the correct interpretation of the word 'suspicion'.
So, the first hurdle is for Jones to convince the HC that it should hear his appeal.
Then, if there is an appeal, the HC will consider the substantial issues in point.
Now, I will caveat what I have said with the health warning that my summation has been a 'quick and dirty' one and that this is not a case that I have followed with other than a passing interest.
However, the substance of the appeal is LIKELY to be that the magistrate erred when he issued the warrant, and that he has misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'suspicion' as it relates to the legislative provisions.
Others who are either closer to the case than I, or who prefer to differ from my 'read' are more than welcome to comment; I certainly will not take offence.
You are right on the money when you said that this is the big time.
I also note that all costs, including the upcoming action on the 08 Feb are billed to Jones.
CASA has spent very little money, if any at all so the public purse is protected so far.
Others may disagree with me but one thing I do know; it is far preferable to never be in a position to have to have a thread like this one written about you than to be the one to fly the escutcheon of righteousness.
Hope this helps.
FF