Javier Francisco Gomez v The Queen

[1982] FCA 324

JUDGMENT No. 3 ........ ....., 24- \/.A

CATCHWORDS

Criminal Law - Appeal Against Sentence - Appeal as i f

Right - Leave Sought t o F i l e and Serve Notice of Appeal

Out o f Time - Appl i ca t ion of Order 52 r .15(2) - Neanlng

o f "Court"	- Whether Application	Can be Made	t o S i n g l e
Judge.

Federal Court o f A u s t r a l i a Act 1 9 7 6 , s .25(2)

JAVIER FRANCISCO GObIEZ v THE QUEEN

No. ACT G 2 of 1982

Fox J

3 February, 1982

Canberra.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY j

) No. ACT G 2 of 1982

DISTRICT REGISTRY	1 1
GENERAL DIVISION	j

J A V I E R FRANCISCO GOMEZ

Appl icant

THE QUEEN

Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGE MAKING ORDER: Fox J

_ .

DATE OF ORDER: 3 February 1 9 S 2

WHERE MADE : Canberra

The Cour t o rde r s t ha t :

1. The a p p l i c a t i o n b e l i s t e d f o r h e a r i n g by the Court

i n accordance with the rulcs.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

1

AUSTULIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY	j
) No. ACT G 2 of 1982
DISTRICT REGISTRY	1
-l
GENERAL DIVISION	1

JAVIER FRANCISCO GOMEZ

Applicant

THE QUEEN

Respondent

Coram: Fox J

3 February, 1982

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The a p p l i c a n t s e e k s t o appeal from a sen tence

of imprisonment imposed i n t h e Supreme Court of the

A u s t r a l i a n C a p i t a l T e r r l t o r y . He was one o f t h ree pe r sons

s e n t e n c e d a t t h e same t i m e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h d i f f e r e n t

p a r t s o f t h e same ac t iv i ty . Th i s cou r t hea rd and

determined an appeal by one of the three persons, namely

Bozo Jurkovic , and reduced h i s sen tence . The d e c i s i o n i n

t h a t case was handed down on 23 December l a s t .

Fo r r easons tha t are s e t o u t i n a n a f f i d a v i t

f i l e d on b e h a l f o f t h e a p p l i c a n t , h e d i d n o t f l l e or serve

a no t i ce o f appea l w i th in t he p re sc r ibed time. O r i g i n a l l y ,

he had an appeal as o f r i g h t . He i s now well out of t ime.

- 2 -

The a p p l i c a t i o n t o me i s made under Order 5 2 ,

r u l e 1 5 , sub - ru l e ( 2 ) . Reference has been made t o Order

5 2 , r u l e s 3 ( 2 ) and 4 , to io rm 5 4 , and t o s . 2 5 ( 2 ) o f t h e

Federal Court of Austral ia Act . Al though "Court" i s

def ined f o r the purposes of Order 52 t o mean t h e a p p e l l a t e

C o u r t , i . e . a Fu l l Cour t , i t i s s u b m i t t c d t h a t a s i n g l e

j u d g e c a n a c t , p u r s u a n t t o s . Z S ( 2 ) of the Act wi th o r

wi thout ass i s tance f rom Order 3 r u l e 3 .

My view i s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . I t seems t o me t h a t

' t h e a p p l i c a t i o n must be made t o a Court i n accordance with

Order 5 2 , r u l e 15, sub- ru l e ( 2 ) . This i s a s u b - r u l e

dea l ing w i th a s p e c i a l s i t u a t i o n . O r d e r 5 2 , r u l e 3 , sub-

r u l e ( 2 ) d e a l s w i t h t h e manner of making an appl icat ion

under r u l e 15(2) and may perhaps have been more

a p p r o p r i a t e l y p l a c e d i n D i v i s i o n 2 of Order 52 under the

heading "Appeals". I do n o t t h i n k it i s to be t aken f rom

s u b - r u l e 2 of r u l e 3 o r from the way t h e a l t e r n a t i v e (2) i n

form 54 i s e x p r e s s e d t h a t a person who h a s n o t i n s t i t u t e d

an appeal within t ime i s a person who needs leave t o appeal

i n t h e o r d i n a r y s e n s e . I t i s n o t a case t o wh ich s . 25 (2 )

a p p l i e s . What he does need is t h e l e a v e r e f e r r e d t o i n

l

Order 5 2 , r u l e 1 5 , s u b - r u l e ( 2 ) , namely t o f i l e and serve

i a no t i ce o f appea l . I t may seem incongruous tha t a s i n g l e

judge can dea l w i th the subs t an t ive ma t t e r o f l eave , o r

spec ia l l eave , whereas a Fu l l Cour t has to do with what i s

i n e s s e n c e a f a i l u r e i n p rocedure , bu t t he re may be good

r e a s o n f o r t h i s , a n d i n	any	case	i t	i s	t h e	way	t h e r u l e s
ope ra t e .

- 3 -

Other provis ions , such as Order 1, r u l e S and

Order 3 , r u l e 3 , a r e n o t , i n my o p i n i o n , a p p l i c a b l e ,

because spec ia l p rovis ion i s made f o r t h e s i t u a t i o n i n

ques t ion . I n t h e main they deal with proceedings whlch

have been commenced, o r i n t h e c a s e o f an appea l ,

i n s t i t u t e d . Even i n t h e c a s e of a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e a v e

t o appea l , i f i t is o u t o f t ime, an order has to be sought

from the Court dispensing with the t ime requiremcnt (Order

52 r u l e 5 ( 3 ) ) .

I th ink i n the c i rcumstances , the more s a t i s -

f ac to ry cour se i s n o t t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b u t

r a t h e r t o d i r e c t t h a t i t be brought before the Court as

! r equ i r ed by t h e r u l e s . The Crown has not submitted any

l separate argument on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e rules and

has no t opposed the app l i ca t ion on i t s m e r i t s .

I t h e r e f o r e d i r e c t t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n b e l i s t e d

fo r hea r ing by the Cour t i n acco rdance wi th the ru l e s and

I make no o t h e r order .

-- .-

I l