Grollo, B. v Bates, K.E

[1994] FCA 50

I

I

I	JUDGMENT No. .....,%?...,	l 2kI.a.	! ,
i

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	1	No. VG 555 of 1993
1	No. VG 6 of 1994
GENERAL DIVISION	1

I B E T W E E N :

BRUNO GROLLO

Applicant

- and -

KIMBERLEY ELIZABETH BATES

Respondents

B E T W E E N :

ROBERT CHARLES HOWARD

Applicant

- and -

KIMBERLEY ELIZABETH BATES and Others

the magistrate to make the order that each of the applicants

JUDGE :

PLACE :	Melbourne
DATE :	27th January 1994

EX TEMF'ORE REASONS FOR

I,

.It having been conceded that there are serious issue>\ involved, including issues as to the jurisdiction of I

1, I -

1-

be fingerprinted compulsorily, the difficulty arises of determining where lies the justice of the case in relation to a stay, while the applicants seek to .vindicate the rights which they clairfl they have.

On the one hand, the refusal of a stay would involve each of the applicants being fingerprinted, no doubt soon after the existing stay runs out which is, as I understand it, tomorrow and any evidence obtainable as a result of their fingerprinting being used against them in the committal proceeding due to commence on 11th April and afterwards in any trial that may result.

On the other hand, a stay altogether will frustrate the investigative process and will perhaps delay or fragment the committal and possibly delay any resulting trial, in the event that the applicants are unsuccessful in these proceedings.

It does seem to me that the balance can be struck between those two extreme positions by doing something along the lines proposed by Mr Weinberg, namely, accepting appropriate undertakings from his clients as to the manner in which any fingerprints taken pursuant to the orders might be dealt with, in the event that the applicants are ultimately

,, unsuccessful. I would envisage such undertakings as involving

,l destruction of the fingerprints and of any copies or extracts

thereof and an undertaking that those fingerprints and any

,.	3
. '	extracts or results of investigations using them would not be

-. .P

tendered in evidence against either of the applicants in or in
relation to any criminal prosecution.

The precise wording of the undertakings perhaps might be best worked out between.counse1. I therefore propose to refuse each application for a stay upon suitable undertakings being given. I will also make directions along the lines of those which were discussed this morning, including directions for the delivery of notices under S. 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903, for the setting down for trial of each application with such expedition as may be available and perhaps a direction for the filing and service of a defence, if that were desired.

I think it appropriate that, having announced my view of the matter, I should leave the bench and allow counsel, if they can, to work out the terms of any undertaking and the terms of any order.

i

Counsel for the applicant, Grollo:  Mr. Merkel QC with Mr.

i -

Beach. l

Solicitors for the applicant, Grollo:	Arnold Bloch Liebler.
Counsel for the respondents:	Mr. Weinberg QC with Ms. Carlin.
Solicitors for the respondents:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth).
Counsel for the applicant, Howard:	Mr. Elwood.
Solicitors for the applicant, Howard:	Galbally,  Fraser &
Rolfe.
Counsel for the respondents:	Mr. Weinberg QC with Ms. Carlin.
Solicitors for the respondents:	Director of  Public
Prosecutions (Cth).
The second respondent did not appear and wes not represented.
Date of Hearing:	27th January 1994
Date of Judgment:	27th January 1994

I certify that this and the

preceding three (3) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his

Honour ~ustice-

. . -. - - - Gray.

Associate: Date: 27

JUDGES CHAMBERS.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA,

450 LITTLE BOURKE STREET,

-I* AUSTRALIA 8 6

-J'>>>>>w<<<<cLC- MELBOURNE. 3000

15 February 1994

MS Elizabeth Harrison
Library Services
Principal Registry
Federal Court of Australia
Level 19
Law Courts Building
Queens Square

SYDNEY NSW 2000

Dear Madam

I now enclose the following Reasons for Judgment together with their disks to enable you to update the Computerised Legal Information Retrieval System:-

1.    B. Grollo v. K.E. Bates & Ors

No. VG 555 of 1993

2.    R.C. Howard v. K.E. Bates & Ors No. VG 6 of 1994

3.    H & L Lilburn v. Lanson Investments Pty. Ltd.

I look forward to the return of the disks on completion.

Yours faithfully

CAROL DAVIES
Secretary to Gray J.