Omar, O. v Lanham, G.E Summary

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

AUSTRALIAN ZAFITAL TERRITORY

l	No. ACT G 38 of 1985

IjISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL LIVI3ION

aN APPEAL FROM

THE SUPREME COURT OF

THE AUSTRALIAN CAP1T.L TERRITORY

BETWEEN :

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

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.

The circumstances. taken

ln comblnatlon. upon whlch

the appellant relies to establish the necessary exceptional

circumstances.

may be summarised as follows:

that

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 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

The case of Omar v Lanham is an appeal for bail pending the hearing and determination of an appeal against the severity of a sentence imposed on the appellant by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The appellant, Omar, was convicted of receiving stolen goods and was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months. The matter came before the Federal Court of Australia, where Justice Neaves was tasked with determining whether bail should be granted to the appellant pending the appeal.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the appellant had a good prospect of success in the appeal, whether the court could be confident that the appellant would answer his bail if granted, whether there was a disparity between the sentence imposed on the appellant and that imposed on the principal offender, and whether a significant period would elapse before the appeal was heard and determined. The court also considered the exceptional circumstances that warranted the grant of bail.

Justice Neaves concluded that, despite the case being a border-line one, bail should be granted in all the circumstances. The judge ordered that the appellant be admitted to bail pending the hearing and determination of the appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, subject to the appellant entering into a recognizance in the sum of $1000 and one surety in the sum of $1000, to appear at the Court when the appeal comes on for hearing or at such earlier date as the Court may determine. The judge further ordered that the appellant take all necessary steps to have the appeal papers prepared and filed not later than 19 July 1985 and to approach the District Registrar of the Court to fix a date for the hearing of the appeal.

Omar, O. v Lanham, G.E

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established