Briot v Riedel

[1988] FCA 856

IN TEE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1

DIVISION	GENERAL	)	No. G 837 of 1988
1
NEW SOUTE WALES DISTRICT	)

Between:  GEOFFREY THOMAS BRIOT
LEONARD NOEL BRIOT
JOHN MAITLAND GRAHAME

Applicants

-	And :	ARTEUR MANNING	RIEDEL
Magistrate

First Respondent

And :

- SHANE FRANCIS CASTLES

Second Respondent

CORAM: Einfeld J.

-	DATE: 8 April 1988
PLACE: Sydney

EX-TEMPORE JUDGMENT

This is an application by the applicants to extend the time for the

bringing of an application for an order of review of two decisions of a

magistrate in respect of committal proceedings brought by the second

respondent as informant against the applicants	in the Local Court	of New
that the delay between the last of those decisions and the bringing	of

South Wales. The decisions were given respectively on	5 September 1986
and 15 July 1987.	The decisions were that there was a case to answer in

the relevant proceedings and that the applicants be committed for trial.

Briefly, and for present purposes only, the parties wish to raise the

following points on the motion to extend time. The applicants argue

the application for judicial review is explained and should be accepted

as having been caused by, inter alia, the delay in the transcript of the

committal proceedings becoming available. The second respondent argues

that even if the delay was explicable on that basis, the application for

judicial review has no substantive merit and wishes to argue the

jurisdiction of the Federal Court to entertain this application.

From that summary of the respective positions, it can be seen that the

application	for extension of time would itself be lengthy, because it
would involve a jurisdictional argument and	a consideration of whether
several of the substantive matters contained	in the application for

judicial review could raise an arguable case or are of sufficient

cogency that they should be entertained.

The committal proceeding,	I am informed, went for a considerable period
of time and has involved several thousand pages	of transcript together

with many exhibits. It is therefore my view that I should deal with this matter by entertaining both the application for an extension of time and the substantive application f o r an order of review together.

It seems inevitable that virtually the same matters will have to be

investigated in both matters if the application for extension of time

is successful. The application for extension of time is therefore stood

over part heard	to a date on which the substantive application can	also
be argued.

The second respondent is anxious that the trial proceed at the earliest possible time, if it is to proceed at all. Notwithstanding the fact

that at the present time the ordinary delays	in the New South Wales
courts for criminal matters of this kind is likely to delay	a trial for

some time, the second respondent does not wish that these judicial

review proceedings should delay the fixing of the first available date.

For that reason it seems to me that these two applications should be

brought on for hearing at the earliest possible time. I therefore

propose, after adjourning today, to investigate whether and to what

extent any days in the week commencing 2 May 1988 will be available

either to me or to another Judge of the Court. In order to enable me

to do that, and to enable the parties to agree on appropriate directions

to be given for the readying of the application for an order of review

by that date, I adjourn both matters to Tuesday next, April 12 1988 at

9.30am for directions. On that day I hope to be able to announce

hearing dates in the week commencing	2 May 1988.
I reserve the question of costs	of the notice of motion.