Omar, O. v Lanham, G.E

[1985] FCA 325

IN THE FEEEF	:AL COURT OF AUSTRAL1	-	A	l
I

AUSTRALIAN ZAFITAL TERRITORY	i
l No. ACT G 38 of 1985
IjISTRICT REGISTRY	l
l
GENERAL LIVI3ION	l

aN APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CAP1T.L TERRITORY

BETWEEN : G M G M

Appellant

AND :	GEOFFREY	EDWARD	LMIHAM
Respondent

CORAM: Neaves J.

D B : 26 June 1985

EX TEMPORE JTJDGMENT

This is an application by Gmar Gmar ("the appellant">

for bail pendlng the hearing and deterrination f an appeal to

this Court against the severity of a sentence lmposed on the

applicant on 20 June 1985 by the	Supreme	Court	of	the
Australian Capital Territory.

The appellant was charged, originally before the Court

of Petty Sessions, wlth an offence auainst section 188 of the

Crimes Act, 1900 (N.S.W.) in its application to the Territory

I . L.

of recelvlnq goods, to wlt a stereo, knowlnq the same to have been stolen. H? was convlcteri on 31 Jul:? 1984 . The magistrate

declded that he should. wlthout p,assinu A sentence of

lmprlsonmenr.. re1ea:je the appeilant upon hls enterlnq m t o a

bond hlmself ln the sum ot', $ 5 0 0 upon the followmq condltLons:

.

chat he be of crood behaviour for a perlod of two Years from

that day and that he pay. as a penalt:? to the Commonwealth, the

sum of $ 5 G G wlthln 9 0 days.

From hls convlctlon, the applicant appealed to the

Supreme Court. I understand that. pendinq the appeal, the

applicant was allowed ball. The appeal did not come before the

Court - that is, the Supreme Court - until 19 and 20 June 1985.

On the latter date the appeal was dismissed and the appellant

convlcted of the offence and sentenced to impr~sonment for nine

months. The appllcant. as I have said, has appealed to this

Court against the severity of that sentence.

There is llttle materlsl before me, elther as to the

clrcumstances of the offence or, in partlcular. as to the

matters which the learned ludge	of the Supreme Court took into
account In fixing the sentence.

It is establlshed that the principle which governs the granting of ball after convlctlon and scntencc 1s that l t wlll not oe granted othermse than Ln exceptlonal circumstances.

I .

The circumstances. taken ln comblnatlon. upon whlch

.I

the appellant relies to establish the necessary exceptional

circumstances. may be summarised as follows: that he

prospects of the appellant succeeding in hls appeal are uood:

that the Courr: may be confldent that the appellant will answer

his bail. if granted; that there is a disparity between the

sentence Imposed on him and the sentence imposed on the

principal offender who was convicted of stealing the goods m

question: and that a period of some four months may elapse

before the appeal 15 heard and determined. unless steps are

taken to expedite the hearmu.

Althouah the case 1 s . in my new, a border-line one, I

have reached the conclusion that, in all the circumstances,

bail should be granted. I. therefore, order that the appellant

be admitted to ball pendinv the hearing and determination of

the appeal to this Court upon him entering into a recognizance.

self in the sum of $1000 and one surety in the sum of $1000, to

appear at this Court when the appeal comes on for hearing or at

such earlier date as the Court may determme. I order that the

appellant take all necessary steps to have the appeal papers

for the use of the Court and the parties prepared and filed not

r r ' 4 .

later than 1 9 J u l y 1085 and forthwith thereafter approach the

Illstrict Registrar	of the Court to fix a	date for the hearlng
of the appeal.

.- I ,

I certif:z that thls and

the precedinu 3 pages are

a true copy of the Reasons

for Judument h e r e m of the

Honourable Mr Justlce

Dated: 26 June 1985