R v C in the matter of a submission pursuant to Section 30A of the Federal Court Act 1976 of a question of law for the determination of a Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

[1994] FCA 341

R v C
IN THE MATTER of a submission pursuant to Section 30A of the Federal Court Act
1976 of a question of law for the determination of a Full Court of the Federal
Court of Australia
No. ACTG2 of 1994
FED No. 341/94
Number of pages - 1
Appeal

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
BURCHETT, MILES AND RYAN JJ

CATCHWORDS

Appeal - competency of appeal - special case on a question of law submitted under s.30A Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 - whether reference in s.30A to Director of Public Prosecutions refers to the Commonwealth DPP or the Australian Capital Territory DPP.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976, s.30A
Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990 (ACT)

R v L (No. ACT G1 of 1994) (unreported, Full Court of the Federal Court, 31 May 1994)

HEARING

CANBERRA, 21 April 1994
#DATE 31:5:1994

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. K. Crispin, QC

with Mr. S. Loomes

Solicitors for the appellant: ACT Director of Public

Prosecutions

Counsel for the respondent: Mr. S.H. Pilkington

Solicitors for the respondent: Porter Pilkington

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

BURCHETT, MILES AND RYAN JJ This appeal comes before a Full Court as a reference appeal under s.30A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976. The appeal was initiated by the filing in the ACT District Registry of a special case which set out the questions of law submitted for the determination of the Full Court. The special case was filed on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the Australian Capital Territory (the ACT DPP) appointed pursuant to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1990 (ACT) an enactment of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory.

1. The question of competency of the appeal was raised as an initial question by Mr. Crispin QC, ACT DPP. Mr. Pilkington of counsel appeared for the person charged at the trial and acquitted and supported the submissions of Mr. Crispin on the initial question of competency.

2. For the reasons that we have set out in the judgment delivered this day in the appeal of R v. L, No. ACT G1 of 1994, we are of the opinion that the appeal is incompetent. The appeal is dismissed with costs.