Clarke, Peter Daniels v Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions
[1998] FCA 1542
•11 NOVEMBER 1998
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292
PETER DANIELS CLARKE v COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
No AG 98 of 1998
JUDGES: GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ
PLACE: CANBERRA
DATED: 11 NOVEMBER 1998
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) AG 98 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: PETER DANIELS CLARKE
Appellant
AND: COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Respondent
JUDGES: GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ
PLACE: CANBERRA
DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 1998
MINUTES OF ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles CJ of 24 September 1998 be refused.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
GENERAL DISTRIBUTION
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
) AG 98 of 1998
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY )
)
GENERAL DIVISION )
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
BETWEEN: PETER DANIELS CLARKE
Appellant
AND:COMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC PROSECTIONS
Respondent
JUDGES: GALLOP, MADGWICK and KATZ JJ
PLACE: CANBERRA
DATE: 11 NOVEMBER 1998
EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
GALLOP J:
This is an application for leave to appeal against an order of Miles CJ in the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory refusing the application for committal proceedings against the applicant in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates’ Court to be stayed until 4 January 1999 or thereafter. Having heard the applicant, I am of the view that the decision of Miles CJ is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant its being reconsidered by the Full Court and no substantial injustice would result to the applicant if leave was refused. I would therefore refuse the application for leave. So doing does not mean that this court would be expressing any view one way or the other about the correctness of what his Honour said about the Dietrich case (Dietrich v The Queen (1992) 177 CLR 292) and any application that might be made pursuant to Dietrich, but in my view there is just no merit in this application for leave to appeal and I dismiss it.
MADGWICK J:
I agree.
KATZ J:
I also agree.
GALLOP J:
The Order of the Court therefore is that the application for leave to appeal against the decision of Miles CJ of 24 September be refused.
We make no order as to costs.
I certify that this and the preceding page is a true copy of the Ex tempore Reasons for Judgment herein of their Honours, Justice Gallop, Justice Madgwick and Justice Katz.
Associate:
Date: November 1998
Applicant: In person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Maidment
Instructing Solicitors: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Date of hearing: 11 November 1998
Date of judgment: 11 November 1998
0
2
0