FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
LAZ24 v Purcell (Examiner) (Stay Application) [2025] FCA 946
ORDERS
NSD 839 of 2025 BETWEEN: LAZ24
Appellant
AND: ANDREW PURCELL, AN EXAMINER APPOINTED UNDER S46B OF THE AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION ACT 2002 (CTH)
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
NEEDHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 AUGUST 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed with costs.
2.Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the grounds in s 37AG(1)(a) and (c):
(a)These unredacted reasons for judgment not be published and not be made available to any person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives otherwise than pursuant to an order of a judge of the Court.
(b)Within three days of the date these reasons are provided to the parties, the parties provide to the Associate to Needham J a proposed redacted version of the reasons for judgment which the parties consider is appropriate for publication.
3.The name of the appellant’s wife be redacted from any transcript of the proceedings.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read LAZ24 v Purcell (Examiner) (Stay Application) and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 946
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the appeal grounds were sufficiently strong to warrant a stay of the sentence pending the appeal. The court also had to consider whether there were any compassionate or discretionary grounds that could justify a stay. The applicant argued that the coercive nature of the sentence could result in his wife being exposed to contempt of court proceedings, which would be a foreseeable consequence of the sentence. The court had to weigh the coercive nature of the sentence against the need to uphold the rule of law and the importance of finality in legal proceedings.
The court found that the appeal grounds were not sufficiently strong to warrant a stay of the sentence. The court noted that the coercive nature of the sentence was a foreseeable consequence of the sentence, but that this did not necessarily mean that the sentence was coercive in the legal sense. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated any compassionate or discretionary grounds that could justify a stay. The court found that the sentence was not coercive and that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for a stay. The court dismissed the application and ordered that the unredacted reasons for judgment not be published and not be made available to any person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives otherwise than pursuant to an order of a judge of the Court. The court also ordered that the name of the appellant’s wife be redacted from any transcript of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application be dismissed with costs.
2. Pursuant to s 37AF of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), on the grounds in s 37AG(1)(a) and (c):
(a) These unredacted reasons for judgment not be published and not be made available to any person other than a party to the proceeding or their legal representatives otherwise than pursuant to an order of a judge of the Court.
(b) Within three days of the date these reasons are provided to the parties, the parties provide to the Associate to Needham J a proposed redacted version of the reasons for judgment which the parties consider is appropriate for publication.
3. The name of the appellant’s wife be redacted from any transcript of the proceedings.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.